Sitting of 8 December 1983

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

    NOTTINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Order for consideration, as amended, read.
    To be considered upon Thursday 15 December.

    SHREWSBURY AND ATCHAM BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)
      TEES AND HARTLEPOOL PORT AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)

        DARTFORD TUNNEL BILL [Lords] (By Order)
        Orders for Second reading read.
        To be read a Second time upon Thursday 15 December.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Chief Constable
    Rev. Ian Paisleyasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on how many days the Chief Constable of Northern Ireland has been out of Northern Ireland on official business from October 1982 to October 1983; for what purposes; and how these absences compare with each previous year since his appointment.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Nicholas Scott): The number of occasions on which the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary is out of Northern Ireland on official business, and the reasons for his absence, are matters for the Chief Constable himself and the Police Authority for Northern Ireland. I understand, however, that from 1 October 1982 to 7 October 1983 the Chief Constable undertook 16 duty engagements outside Northern Ireland, involving a total absence of 43 days.
    In the two preceding 12-month periods, the comparable figures were 30 days and 31 days respectively.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in the year during which the Chief Constable was absent for that period many of his officers were murdered, many of the officers of the Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve were murdered, many civilians were murdered and many members of the Ulster Defence Regiment were murdered? He was out of the country for more than a month in a
    448
    period of 12 months. What duties was he carrying out? Was the Police Authority responsible for his transport, for his hotel bills and for his air fare while he was absent?
    Mr. Scott: The Chief Constable was out of the country on official business. He had the permission of the Police Authority, and it would have covered his expenses. think that it is very much to the credit of the Royal Ulster Constabulary that it has as Chief Constable a man who is in great demand to represent the force internationally. The work that he does in liaison with other police forces contributes significantly to the battle against terrorism in the Province.
    Mr. John David Taylor: As it has been reported in the press that the Chief Commissioner of the Garda Siochana is hesitant about meeting the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, can the Minister confirm that this means that the Chief Constable will be out of Northern Ireland for fewer days next year? Will he comment on that report?
    Mr. Scott: I think that Northern Ireland is immensely fortunate to have a man of such integrity as the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary dedicating his energies and skills to the battle against terrorism. All I can say on the point that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned is that co-operation between the Garda Siochana and the Royal Ulster Constabulary has never been better.

    Irish Congress of Trades Unions
    Mr. Nellistasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what issues were discussed when he met the Northern Ireland committee of the Irish Congress of Trades Unions on 28 November 1983; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Butler): My right hon. Friend's discussion with the Northern Ireland committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions covered a wide range of economic and other issues, including several employment matters, public expenditure, privatisation, energy policy and industrial promotion.
    Mr. Nellist: When the Secretary of State met the Northern Ireland committee, how did he explain the fact that long-term male unemployment in Northern Ireland has risen under this Government from 37 per cent. of unemployed men in 1979 to 48 per cent. now? Strabane has 50 per cent. male unemployment and unemployment in Northern Ireland is twice as high as it is in the rest of the United Kingdom. How did the right hon. Gentleman explain to the Northern Ireland committee that he expects support for sectarianism in the north of Ireland to decline, if the economic conditions of mass unemployment and poverty, which fuel that support, are not reduced?
    Mr. Butler: Although I was not present on that occasion, I have no doubt that the members of the Northern Ireland committee and my right hon. Friend agreed that the levels of unemployment in Northern Ireland were far too high. Doubtless they might also have agreed that unemployment has an impact on security. That is why Her Majesty's Government are prepared to place the current level of financial support behind the Province. It is on the record of the meeting that the members of the committee congratulated the Government on having

    449
    helped to secure orders for Harland and Wolff, which is largely male employing. They congratulated Shorts on the orders which it is obtaining, again an undertaking which is largely male employing. They congratulated the Government, too, on concluding the deal with the Republic of Ireland Government on Kinsale gas, which will provide many jobs.
    Mr. Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall deal with points of order afterwards. If they are taken now, time will be taken from Question Time.
    Mr. Archer: Why is the Minister reporting on a meeting at which he was not present? Can he comment on press reports that the Secretary of State is considering the establishment of an investment bank for Northern Ireland to deal with the real problem of high interest rates? If that is so, can he indicate how is it proposed that the bank should be financed? What will be the control structure and what will be the criteria for obtaining low-interest loans?
    Mr. Butler: First, I have said nothing which has not been said publicly before. Secondly, if an investment bank is set up it will operate on commercial lines. I imagine that interest rates will reflect that. An interest relief grant is available to the Industrial Development Board and to the Local Enterprise Development Unit, which may help when interest charges are an especial burden on a company which is trying to invest.

    Security
    Mr. Proctorasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland.
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. James Prior): Sadly I have to inform the House that since I last answered questions on 10 November, two members of the RUC, one UDR soldier and nine civilians have died in incidents arising from the security situation. The brutal murder of three of these civilians in the attack on Mountain Lodge Pentecostal hall on 20 November, about which I made a statement to the House the next day, and the cold-blooded murder of Mr. Edgar Graham, about which my hon. Friend the Minister of State made a statement yesterday, clearly demonstrate the barbarity of terrorism.
    Despite the difficulties and dangers, members of the security forces have continued with their dedicated efforts to combat terrorist crime in all its forms. So far this year 580 people have been charged with terrorist-type offences, including 66 with murder and 59 with attempted murder, 204 weapons, over 34,000 rounds of ammunition and 3,762 lb of explosives have been recovered in the same period. The Government and the security forces will not be diverted from their tasks.
    Mr. Proctor: Will my right hon. Friend accept that it is now his duty to remain in post to restore security in Northern Ireland, and by every word, act and deed convey to the terrorists the simple message that they will not win?
    Mr. Prior: It is not often that I agree with my hon. Friend, but on this occasion I agree wholeheartedly with everything that he has said.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Secretary of State accept that it is not a proper excuse for security
    450
    spokespersons to say that victims of terrorism did not ask for special protection, especially when they were aware of the dangers and when they tell us that the security authorities know best? Will he further accept that no responsible politician would ask for personal protection which could not be provided for his constituents?
    Mr. Prior: Yes. I should like to make it plain that I realise the intensity of the hon. Gentleman's feelings, which I fully understand and share. It would be unreasonable if the decision whether protection was to be given was left to the individual, including the decision to ask for it. If the police think that there is that degree of risk, they should say that protection is to be given, and it should be given. I do not suggest that it was the responsibility of Mr. Edgar Graham to ask for protection.
    I understand that inquiries were made through the offices of the hon. Gentleman following the expression of his view that there was a threat to Mr. Graham. I am sorry to take a little time in dealing with this supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Graham was seen and advised about the additional protection which he could take himself and which could be offered to him. He was not considered to be at greater risk than many others and there was no intelligence to suggest that he was a specific target. The RUC's problem is that it receives information from the public about specific threats and targets each day. It then has to form a judgment on how much protection it is able to give. It is not possible to protect everyone in these circumstances. I wish to remove any idea that it was up to Mr. Graham to ask for protection. It certainly was not.
    Mr. Peter Robinson: In the light of the terrorist statistics which the Secretary of State has outlined, will he state which of the following propositions he believes to be the more unreasonable: that Northern Ireland Members should request meetings with the Chief Constable of Northern Ireland about incidents in their constituencies, or that the Chief Constable should refuse all such meetings?
    Mr. Prior: The Chief Constable is responsible for security and I wish to make it plain that he must make his own decisions. He is responsible to the Police Authority. I believe that Northern Ireland is extremely fortunate in having a man of the integrity of the present Chief Constable. He is faced with extremely difficult problems. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point about the Chief Constable's relationship with Members of Parliament. There is a problem there, but, in the specific and special circumstances of Northern Ireland, it must be for the Chief Constable to decide whom he sees and whom he does not. I have offered a meeting with the political leaders at which both the Chief Constable and the GOC would be present. I shall ascertain whether there are other ways of making a meeting possible.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: May I return to the question of the tragic death of Mr. Edgar Graham yesterday? Does the right hon. Gentleman recall the allegation that Mr. Graham made in the Assembly recently, which was that so-called Loyalist paramilitaries and Republican paramilitaries were collaborating to kill Ulster politicians, who have a much more difficult job than any of us in this place? Is there any evidence that the allegation made by Mr. Graham of collaboration between killers, who have more in common with one another than they do with anyone else, was true?
    Mr. Prior: There is no specific evidence, although there is a good deal of anecdotal evidence to that effect. I join the right hon. Gentleman in saying that those who take the responsibility of democratic government in Northern Ireland have an extraordinarily difficult job to undertake. I should like to thank them for the part that they play.
    Mr. Latham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, with the unending abominations and atrocities that come from the troubled Province of Northern Ireland, there is great support for him in all corners of the House as he undertakes his duties, and that many hon. Members are prepared to ensure that whatever resources are necessary are provided to help him to restore law and order in the Province?
    Mr. Prior: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I asked both the GOC and the Chief Constable whether they required additional resources and they told me that they did not. If at any time they come to me—I have seen the Chief Constable three times in the past 24 hours—and ask for additional resources, I know that the Government will be prepared to grant them. We need to have the best security forces that we can possibly provide and the wholehearted co-operation of all people in Northern Ireland, in the same way as I believe that I have the wholehearted co-operation of everyone in the House in doing what I can.
    Several Hon. Members rose——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. There are later questions on security.

    Home Help Service
    Mr. J. Enoch Powellasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what advice he has given to the health and social services boards regarding economies in the cost of the home help service.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Chris Patten): No advice has been given to the health and social services boards specifically on economies in the cost of the home help service.
    Mr. Powell: Given that it is desirable that all expenditure should be carefully scrutinised, is the Minister aware of disquieting information which reaches hon. Members, particularly in the area of some boards, that a kind of rule of thumb is being applied to cut down expenditure on the home help service without regard to particular circumstances? Will he concern himself to look into the background of that impression?
    Mr. Patten: I shall certainly look into the background. A joint review group of the Department and the area boards is looking at the home help service. As the right hon. Gentleman will doubtless know, we are spending 91 per cent. more on the home help service than three years ago. We are spending in all £16 million on the home help service, but I recognise that despite that increase there is still concern, and we need to look into the matter.
    Mr. Soley: Does the Minister appreciate that the Opposition are strongly opposed to any cuts in the home help service, which is crucial within the Health Service, and nor do we look kindly on any other attempt to cut the Health Service in the ways that it has been cut in some areas in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Patten: The home help service has been increasing during the past few years. It is not without relevance that 19·4 per thousand of the population over 65 in Northern Ireland are provided with the service, whereas in England the figure is 6·5 per thousand. There are still difficulties, but there is increased spending on the Health Service in Northern Ireland, not cuts as the hon. Gentleman suggested.

    Public Expenditure
    Mr. Molyneauxasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to what other services he proposes to allocate any estimated underspending on the Northern Ireland Assembly for the current year.
    Mr. Prior: I do not at present expect Assembly expenditure for the current financial year to be significantly different from that originally estimated.
    Mr. Molyneaux: Whether the expenditure savings will be great or small, and given the point made by the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham), will the Secretary of State ensure that financial considerations will in no circumstances impair the operational efficiency of the security forces? Will the Government give the highest possible priority to the elimination of terrorism, which must be a prerequisite for any form of political process?
    Mr. Prior: I confirm that the Government will give the utmost priority to the elimination of terrorism and provide the resources necessary to do so. I have never been asked by my colleagues to cut back on anything required for defence or law and order, and I am certain that they would not ask me to do so now.
    Mr. Fatchettasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will indicate the likely impact of the Chancellor's statement of 17 November on the Northern Ireland economy.
    Mr. Butler: My right hon. Friend's statement of 17 November reflected the Government's strategy of creating a sound base for sustained economic recovery which will benefit all regions of the United Kingdom. The Chancellor's statement included a planning figure for public expenditure in Northern Ireland next year of £4,020 million; in line with the planning total for 1984–85 published in the last public expenditure White Paper. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be making a statement shortly giving details of the allocation of this Northern Ireland total.
    Mr. Fatchett: Given the cuts that are being imposed on the Health Service in Northern Ireland, and recognising the CBI's view that employers in Northern Ireland will continue to shed labour, does the Minister now agree with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that it is important that the Government should show greater determination in fighting unemployment? Does he agree also that if the number of people unemployed is reduced that may make some contribution to reducing the number of potential terrorists?
    Mr. Butler: I have already agreed to the point about reducing the number of potential terrorists. If the hon. Gentleman had listened to what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said a few moments ago, he would know that my hon. Friend repudiated the suggestion of cuts in the Health Service in Northern Ireland. The House must

    453
    wait for the statement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the allocation of expenditure for next year. The figure that I gave will be very near the total that will be announced. That represents an increase in spending in the Province which will be reflected in almost all Departments.
    Mr. Hume: Does the Minister agree that Northern Ireland is now the only area in Western Europe where the unemployment figures are higher than for those employed in manufacturing industry and that that qualifies it to be described as "an economic disaster area"? Does he agree also that the seriousness of the economic problem is now seriously interacting with the security problem? What special measures have the Government in mind to deal with that difficulty?
    Mr. Butler: It is a matter of fact that the numbers out of work exceed those employed in manufacturing. I cannot say how the Northern Ireland position compares with that elsewhere. More serious from the point of view of the economy of the Province is the narrowness of the manufacturing base, which is represented by approximately 1,000 people. I believe that the hon. Gentleman is well aware of the incentive package which we introduced in the spring of this year, which is having an effect. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will share my satisfaction in, for instance, the success which the Industrial Development Board is having in attracting would-be investors to Northern Ireland. There are about five times the number of such investors now visiting the Province compared with last year, and some investment will flow from those visits. I can confirm that from my experience last week in North America, and we must take encouragement from that.
    Mr. Budgen: Further to the suggestion of my hon. Friend for an investment bank — presumably partly funded by the taxpayer—what is the point of such a bank if it is run on commercial lines?
    Mr. Butler: The plans for such a bank are being investigated by the Industrial Development Board and other financial institutions. The Province is looking for an investment bank because it is short of private sector funds for this purpose. It is short of vehicles for private sector investment. As I said earlier, it is my understanding that if an investment bank were set up it would be entirely commercial, but it would operate in parallel with the Industrial Development Board.
    Mr. Soley: If these extra Government incentives in the economy are so valuable in Northern Ireland, why are they not used here?
    Mr. Butler: The hon. Gentleman has always believed that money grows on trees. It is taxpayers and the more prosperous parts of the country — whether they are personal or industrial taxpayers—that are having to put down money from their pockets to help Northern Ireland. I believe—I hope that the hon. Gentleman does as well —that they are ready to do so because of the special problems. It would be nonsensical if every part of the country were helped in that way.

    Northern Ireland Assembly
    Mr. Dubsasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had with political leaders in Northern Ireland about the future of the Assembly.
    Mr. Hal Millerasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the working of the Assembly.
    Mr. Prior: I have regular discussions with political leaders in Northern Ireland on a wide range of topics, including the Assembly. The Government believe that the Assembly continues to offer a framework within which progress could be made towards a lasting and acceptable political settlement. It is in the interests of all the people of Northern Ireland that constitutional parties should participate in it.
    Mr. Dubs: Is the Secretary of State not being rather optimistic about the future of the Assembly? Is it not now time for him to come forward with a new political initiative, given that it is unlikely that the Assembly has much future?
    Mr. Prior: If one is not optimistic about something in Northern Ireland, one is not suited to do anything. I believe that the Assembly provides the best way of improving democratic control within Northern Ireland by the people of Northern Ireland. I hope that those who have so far refused to take part in, or who have found some excuse to come out of, the Assembly will have second thoughts. As I said once before, it is easy enough to knock down democratic institutions; it is quite hard work to build them up.
    Mr. Miller: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, despite the acts of barbarous terrorism to which he referred, people in Great Britain still expect and prefer a political to a military solution in Northern Ireland and believe that those acts demonstrate the need for political leaders to come together to work out the Province's problems?
    Mr. Prior: I endorse what my hon. Friend said. I had hoped that the Assembly would be one means by which, gradually, we could not only get people to work together but bring forward fresh political leaders. One of the tragedies about the death of Mr. Edgar Graham is that he was a young man who was making his reputation in the Northern Ireland Assembly.
    Mr. William Ross: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that the future of the Assembly in its present form does not depend on him, and that he has handed a veto to the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and the SDLP on the future of the Assembly?
    Mr. Prior: No, Sir. The future of the Assembly depends on all the people of Northern Ireland. It is true that both the Nationalist and Unionist communities have a veto on progress, if that is the way they wish it to be. However, I should have thought that the events of the past few days demonstrated beyond doubt the need for both sides to come together.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is the purpose of the IRA and the INLA to smash the Assembly, and therefore that it behoves those who were democratically elected to throw their weight behind it? Will he draw the attention of the House to the nine columns in Hansard yesterday, when he answered questions by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) about the successes of the Assembly?
    Mr. Prior: Yes, Sir. I am convinced that the purpose of the IRA, the INLA and other terrorist organisations is

    455
    to bring about total anarchy in Northern Ireland. We are playing into their hands if we react to that. That is why it is vital that people take part in democratic institutions, stay there and get over some of the problems.
    Mr. Stephen Ross: Is the Secretary of State aware that there are those on Opposition Benches who support him totally in his efforts to keep the Assembly afloat and who would much regret its demise? Does he accept that, as far as we are concerned, he should take no initiative other than to make sure that the Assembly keeps afloat?
    Mr. Prior: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said. I do not have so much support that I do not take it from wherever I can get it.
    Mr. Hume: Will the Secretary of State admit that few people in Northern Ireland have any faith in the Assembly? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the two main parties in the Assembly — one of which has just withdrawn—rejected the terms for devolution of power which the Government laid down before the Assembly elections took place, that being the fourth occasion in a decade on which they rejected the terms for the devolution of power which the House had laid down? That being so, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Assembly was stillborn?
    Mr. Prior: That exemplifies well the problems that I have. One major party rejected the terms for one reason and the other major party rejected them for precisely the opposite reason. In phase one of the Assembly I was trying to get people at least to consider the problems of Northern Ireland and to monitor direct rule, as the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) said. The Civil Service has had to respond to the wishes of the Assembly in a way that it has not had to do for 10 years. That is a good thing for the people of Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Peter Lloyd: As it is clear that legislative devolution is a considerable way off, does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be sensible to consider the way in which legislation affecting Northern Ireland is examined and approved by the House?
    Mr. Prior: Any changes to the way in which legislation is brought to and approved by the House would create a fresh series of problems. My hon. Friend and the House should not kid themselves that there is an easy answer simply through integration.
    Mr. Archer: Does the Secretary of State accept that, whatever our reservations about the Assembly, the Opposition believe that it would be a tragedy if the departure of any group from the Assembly were thought to have been brought about by an act of terrorism, as that would encourage the belief that any political intitiative could be destroyed by the bomb and the gun?
    Mr. Prior: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for what he has said. We would be playing into the hands of the terrorists if, as a result of their actions, the Assembly failed.

    Mentally III Persons
    Mr. Berminghamasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many long-stay patients there are in mental hospitals in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Chris Patten: At 31 December 1982, 2,825 patients in Northern Ireland's psychiatric hospitals had been there for one year or more.
    Mr. Bermingham: Does the Minister agree that there is a correlation between stress and mental illness? Bearing in mind the increasingly stressful situation in Northern Ireland, is it not time that further resources were devoted to that area of medicine to provide for those who ate suffering as a result of the troubles over there?
    Mr. Patten: We have been putting more resources into that area, particularly to enable more people to go back into the community. That is why, for example, we have increased the number of statutory community hostel places, and why, over the past three years, we have increased the number of community psychiatric nurses by 50 per cent. We want to build on those foundations.

    Security
    Sir John Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what improvements have recently been made in the security of the Province, particularly near the border.
    Mr. Maginnisasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has ensured that the recent reinforcement of the security forces along the frontier with the Irish Republic is not limited to the area he has described as the Dundalk corridor.
    Mr. Nicholsonasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he is satisfied with security in South Armagh, since the atrocity at Mountain Lodge Pentecostal hall.
    Mr. Prior: Security force operations and the deployment of policemen and soldiers are essentially matters for the professional judgment of the security force commanders. I am, however, in regular contact with the Chief Constable and the GOC, and am satisfied that the level of security operations along the border takes full account of the situation in that area. A Deputy Chief Constable has assumed direct responsibility for border security and an additional Assistant Chief Constable has been appointed to assist him. Additional troops have been deployed in the area to assist the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: Is not co-operation from the Republic all important? Has there been a lessening of the security effort from south of the border? Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that there are now good relations between the RUC and the Garda Siochana?
    Mr. Prior: Yes, Sir. Security co-operation is essential from the point of the view of both the North and the Republic. Relations between the RUC and the Garda Siochana are good. I have no reason to believe that, despite newspaper reports to the contrary, there has been any lack of co-operative effort between the North and the South. All I can say is that I believe, as does the South, that it can always be subject to improvement.
    Mr. Maginnis: Does the Secretary of State accept that five members of the RUC on duty in 100 sq miles close to the frontier in my constituency, after 12 o'clock at night, does not show that the security advice is as good as he asserts it is?
    Mr. Prior: These matters are essentially for the Chief Constable and the security operations. Of course I shall consider any particular point that the hon. Gentleman raises, but I hope that in turn he will raise the matter with the Deputy Chief Constable, who has been appointed with special responsibilities for these matters.
    Mr. Nicholson: The security situation in my constituency is most serious, to say the least, with the murder of my friend and colleague, the chairman of Armagh district council, Mr. Charles Armstrong, and other murders of friends and neighbours at the Mountain Lodge pentecostal hall. Will the Secretary of State assure the House and my constituents that there will not be a further cosmetic exercise on security but that there will be a more sustained and realistic policy, designed to win rather than to contain?
    Mr. Prior: The hon. Gentleman's constituency has suffered greatly. I share his feelings over the terrible ordeals from which it has suffered. I assure him that our policy is not only to contain violence. It is to beat violence, but it must be left to the GOC and the Chief Constable to determine the manner in which they conduct those operations.
    Rev. William McCrea: Does the Secretary of State agree that at present border security is not considered effective? A senior officer of the RUC admitted to a deputation from my party that border security could be more effective. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is about time that we stopped pussy-footing around with the IRA, took it on, and put our security forces on a war footing?
    Mr. Prior: Our security forces are on an operational footing and everything that can be done will be done. It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman and others to make out that we are only half-hearted or that we are not trying. They should suggest what else we can do that is within the law. It must be within the law.
    Mr. McNamara: In view of the number of battalions that are now deployed in the UDR, the nature of the recruitment to that regiment of the British Army in Northern Ireland, and in view of recent incidents, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that there is sufficient screening of potential recruits to those battalions to prevent the occurrence of incidents such as we have read about this week?
    Mr. Prior: Yes, Sir. I am satisfied that screening is very thorough. It takes some months. I am also satisfied that the Ulster Defence Regiment is performing a magnificent duty in Northern Ireland. It is equally important to recognise that when, as in recent days, alleged offences have been committed, it is probably only in the United Kingdom that such action would be taken as has occurred. It shows the total impartiality and integrity of all that we do to keep law and order in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Mates: Will my right hon. Friend tell us whether any progress has been made on his offer to the four party leaders to come and talk to him, the GOC and the Chief Constable about security matters? Does he agree that, of all the unreasonable actions that have been taken by various leaders at various times, this is possibly the most unreasonable of all, because it is at just such a meeting that the questions asked, very reasonably, by the hon. Members for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr.
    458
    Maginnis) and for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea), and other elected representatives to both the Assembly and this House, can get frank and honest answers from the people whose responsibility it is?
    Mr. Prior: My very sincere attempts were not successful. I had to make it clear that I found the excuses for refusal of three of the four leaders unconvincing, anomalous and incredible. However, it is no good going back over the ground at this time. We have to try to find other ways to achieve the same aim.
    Mr. Soley: Will the Secretary of State initiate talks with the Dublin Government about the possibility of establishing an all-Ireland court and an all-Ireland police force, which could go a long way to deal with the understandable fears of many people on both sides of the border?
    Mr. Prior: We must first make certain that our cooperation across the border is the best that can be obtained. I do not want to comment further.

    Benefits (Cost)
    Mr. Sean Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the total cost of social security payments in Northern Ireland in 1982.
    Mr. Chris Patten: In the financial year 1982–83, the total sum paid was £924,536,085.
    Mr. Hughes: In view of the Minister's complacent replies to my hon. Friends the Members for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) and for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), will the Minister take this opportunity to accept the simple proposition that in Northern Ireland, as in the rest of the country, it is better to use such resources to create jobs rather than to pay people to be unemployed?
    Mr. Patten: I am not aware of having been complacent. I do not believe that many people could reasonably argue that the main reason for Northern Ireland's serious economic problems is inadequate public expenditure.

    United States of America (Extradition Agreement)
    Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what further discussions he had, on his recent visit to the United States of America, concerning the alignment of policy regarding the implementation of the extradition agreement between the two countries.
    Mr. Prior: There was no need for such discussions since there is no difference of policy on extradition between this Government and the United States Administration. We have received every assistance from the United States in instituting extradition proceedings.
    Mr. Adley: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, but is not the problem really the interpretation of what constitutes a political offence in many United States courts? Does he agree that some of the decisions that have been made appear to have had more to do with the political prejudices of the courts than with an attempt to find an honest answer to the proper interpretation of the extradition laws? Is there anything further that my right hon. Friend and his colleagues can do to try to remove that exacerbation?
    Mr. Prior: As I think my hon. Friend knows, legislation is currently before Congress that is intended to limit the courts' discretion to refuse extradition where persons claim that their offences are political. I think that that goes to the root of the problem, and we hope that the legislation will be successful.

    Royal Ulster Constabulary
    Rev. William McCreaasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the average number of hours overtime worked by the Royal Ulster Constabulary and Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve in Strabane during the week prior to the recent public house bombing there.
    Mr. Scott: Records of overtime working in the Royal Ulster Constabulary are maintained on a monthly basis for sub-divisions and are normally collated some four to six weeks in arrears. The overtime worked by Royal Ulster Constabulary officers in the Strabane sub-division in the period before the bombing on 4 November is not, therefore, expected to be available until mid-January. However, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that between June and September of this year each full-time officer based in Strabane sub-division worked, on average, 63 hours overtime per month.
    Rev. William McCrea: In the light of the Minister's statement will he tell the House why the Police Authority admitted to me, while on a deputation from the Democratic Unionist party, that instructions about manpower hours were misunderstood by those in charge and that redirections had to be ordered?
    Mr. Scott: If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that overtime is cut down on the ground of cost, and that operations suffer as a result, what he says is totally untrue.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Penhaligonasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 8 December.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with the United States Treasury Secretary, Mr. Donald Regan.
    Mr. Penhaligon: Can the Prime Minister explain what is happening at Windscale and why, despite all the inspection agencies and assurances from the industry, 25 miles of beach have been closed, radioactivite samples 1,000 times more than normal have been discovered, and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food refuses to release all the information that it is alleged to have? Can the Prime Minister initiate an immediate inquiry and let the House know when this fiasco will end?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, people have already been advised to keep away from those beaches, but inquiries are under way — one by Sir Douglas Black into the incidence of leukaemia in the area, and the other by the proper authorities into any leaks from
    460
    Windscale and the effects that they may have. Both of those inquiries are already under way and there is no point in adding to them.
    Mr. Montgomery: Has my right hon. Friend noted the disgraceful scenes at Brent council last night by a Left-wing "Rentamob"? Is she aware of its determination to stop a coalition of Conservatives and Liberals from taking control of that council? In view of the fact that last week the Leader of the Opposition took so long to condemn violence on the picket lines at Warrington, does she think that perhaps today the Leader of the Opposition will unequivocally condemn the violence that was committed last night by members of his party in Brent?
    The Prime Minister: I saw reports of the disgraceful scenes, which really amounted to mob rule by the Fascist Left. That is what happens when they take power, and hope that the Leader of the Opposition will condemn it.
    Mr. Bell: Will the Prime Minister, in the course of her busy day, refer to her statement yesterday that there would be no unilateral withdrawal of the British contingent from Beirut? Is she saying that there is a veto by the United States, France and Italy over British foreign and defence policy?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The hon. Gentleman's two statements are not compatible. I said that we would not have unilateral withdrawal. This morning there has been a meeting between the four Foreign Secretaries who represent the countries in the multinational force. The MNF continues its good work in the Lebanon.
    Mr. Fisherasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 8 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Fisher: Will the Prime Minister give some time today to consider the problems facing the 9·2 million pensioners in this country? They received an increase in their pension of 3·7 per cent. last month, and many of them are anxious about how they will heat their homes this winter. Will the Prime Minister give a clear undertaking to pensioners that she will not increase gas prices this winter?
    The Prime Minister: On the amount that pensioners have, if one takes our record over the whole period—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"]—since the last of the Labour increases, the pension is 74 per cent. higher than it was then, while the RPI is about 70 per cent. higher. So, in real terms, it is higher than at any time under the Labour Government. There have also been generous fuel additions which, again in real terms, are higher than at any time under the Labour Government. That is not a bad record.
    Mr. Hannam: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the tactics used by Left-wing Labour councillors in Brent to gag their opponents and ride roughshod over democracy? Is this not reminiscent of pre-war Fascist Germany?
    The Prime Minister: I understand that, via a number of procedural devices, Conservative and Liberal councillors were effectively gagged in full council meetings. If that is correct, one can only totally and utterly condemn it as being contrary to every tenet of democracy.
    Mr. Ashleyasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 8 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Ashley: Will the Prime Minister agree that she has been arguing in Europe for the principle that the poorest members should not pay the heaviest burden. If that is so, how about applying that principle at home where she can implement it? We have 1,068,000 people who are longterm unemployed and who are being denied long-term supplementary benefit. That means that married couples are being robbed of £11 a week — a quarter of their income. Unless the Prime Minister acts on that principle, is she aware that she can be accused of double standards?
    The Prime Minister: No, I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman's accusation. The unemployed receive, in the first instance, unemployment benefit from their insurance. Over and above that they receive, as the right hon. Gentleman says, supplementary benefit. The two in total amount to about £5 billion. I think that the two are reasonable under the circumstances.
    Mr. Kinnock: Has the Prime Minister yet had a chance to look at this morning's figures, which, sadly, confirm the fact that the 25 per cent. annual rate of increase in business failures is continuing? Can the right hon. Lady say which policies she will change to reverse this sad trend?
    The Prime Minister: Unemployment, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, appears to have peaked. The number of vacancies is not increasing as fast as we would wish. There is very considerable interest in the new enterprise allowance. As he will have seen from "Social Trends", a record number of people are self-employed. This means that there is a great deal of interest in enterprise. The success or failure of a business depends not upon what the right hon. Gentleman or I say, but upon whether the business produces goods and services which people will buy.
    Mr. Kinnock: I should be very glad to have further good news. I at least agree with the Prime Minister's view on competitiveness. Does she not concur with me when I say that it is extremely sad that, in the four years in which she has been Prime Minister, competitiveness has gone down by 30 per cent. and investment has gone down by 20 per cent.? Given the recovery about which she talks, is she aware that if the present "rate of progress" were sustained it would take 160 years to get back to the level that we enjoyed in 1979? Will the Prime Minister answer my original question and say whether the 160-year wait is part of a medium or long-term strategy?
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman is referring to 1979 and to industrial effort, I point out that output per head and output per hour now are 11 per cent. and 14 per cent. respectively above the previous cyclical peak of 1979. May I, on investment, refer the right hon. Gentleman to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech in the last full day's debate that we had on this subject, when he gave full details on capital and current expenditure and pointed out that when one has a true definition of capital expenditure it is about the same now as it was during the year 1978–79.
    Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Will my right hon. Friend find time today to talk to the Law Officers to see whether they can find a way to prevent authorities such as the GLC and Camden from spending ratepayers' money on Labour party propaganda?
    The Prime Minister: I think that that would probably be, as my hon. Friend indicates, a matter for the district auditors or the Law Officers. I think that we would all deplore the expenditure of ratepayers' money on party political propaganda, particularly those hard-pressed ratepayers of London, including small businesses, who want rates to go down, not up.
    Mr. Winnickasked the Prime Minister what are her official engagements for 8 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Winnick: While recognising that hardly anything has gone right for the Prime Minister in the past few weeks —I am sorry about that—was it not unjust to deprive the Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons of his job of co-ordinating Government policy? Why does not the Prime Minister, like the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Secretary of State for Energy, in their coded ways, recognise the fact that it is the Government's policies that are so damaging to Britain, not their co-ordination?
    The Prime Minister: I note that the hon. Gentleman thinks that getting inflation down is very damaging for Britain—although our record is far better than his—and that the record of output per head is very damaging for Britain, although I think that it is very good. We have done far better on the National Health Service than the Labour Government — [Interruption.] The Labour Government actually reduced provision for the National Health Service in real terms in two of the five years —1976–77 and 1977–78—that they were in office. The fact is that the Conservative Government have been very good for Britain, as was recognised at the last general election.
    Mr. Tapsell: When, later today, my right hon. Friend receives the United States Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Donald Regan, will she discuss with him the reasons why economic policies which can broadly, but fairly, be described as at least neo-Keynesian seem to have brought such beneficial effects to the United States economy? Before our next Budget is finalised, could the principles of British economic policy be rigorously re-examined with an open mind?
    The Prime Minister: In spite of what my hon. Friend said, a Budget deficit of this kind is causing high interest rates, which are extremely damaging to this and other European countries. Further, it is preventing us from getting the amount of investment that we should have in this country because much capital is withdrawing to the United States. The United States also has a fantastic balance of trade deficit in contrast to the figures for this country, where we have a £1·2 billion surplus so far this year. I would rather be in our position, which is sustainable, than in that of United States which, I believe, will cause great trouble within 12 months.
    Dr. Owen: Has the Cabinet yet been able to make up its collective mind on the question of breaking the solicitor's monopoly on house conveyancing? If it has not, will the Government continue merely to talk about competition policy while creating private monopolies and maintaining professional monopolies?
    The Prime Minister: An announcement will be made when the matter comes before the House shortly.

    Enfield
    Mr. Eggarasked the Prime Minister if she will pay an official visit to Enfield.
    The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so.
    Mr. Eggar: My constituents will be disturbed to learn that my right hon. Friend will not be visiting them. Had she planned to visit them, is she aware that they would have expressed deep concern at the events that took place in Brent last night and that they, together with the rest of the country, will take the silence of the Leader of the Opposition at Question Time today as condoning the actions last night?
    The Prime Minister: The events in Brent were a disgrace to democracy and a revelation of the true nature of the Fascist Left.
    Mr. Ashton: Will the Prime Minister find time today to read an article—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has a right to be heard.
    Mr. Ashton: Will the Prime Minister find time today to read an article in Monday's edition of The Times, which was written by Mr. David Hart, a political adviser to the Prime Minister's Office, in which he accuses National Health Service——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has not related his question to Enfield. We must move on to business questions.
    Mr. Ashton: I want to ask a question.
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Ashton: I was going to mention Enfield.
    Mr. Speaker: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman was going to say. I only know what he did say. I did not hear him refer to Enfield in his question. We shall move on to business questions.
    Mr. Ashton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was shouted down before I even had a chance to mention Enfield and before I reached the end of my first sentence. If that had not happened I would have been in order. May I ask my question.
    Mr. Speaker: I must say that I did not hear the hon. Gentleman say anything about Enfield in his preliminary remarks. However, in the spirit of Christmas, I shall let him finish his question, if he relates it to Enfield.
    Mr. Ashton: Would the Prime Minister care to comment on an article in Monday's edition of The Times by a Mr. David Hart, who accused National Health Service workers in Enfield and elsewhere—[Laughted]—of theft and moonlighting? Is Mr. David Hart a political adviser to the Prime Minister's Office, and is it the same Mr. David Hart who went bankrupt a few years ago for nearly £1 million, ran up debts of £1,000 in a Chelsea restaurant and in antique shops, and who is highlighted in today's edition of the Daily Mirror? What sort of advice is the right hon. Lady taking from such an adviser?
    The Prime Minister: Mr. Hart is not a political adviser to me, or to No. 10. If the hon. Gentleman has any quarrel with him, I suggest that he puts it to him personally.
    Sir Anthony Berry: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the Christmas spirit, cannot we have one more question from an hon. Member who represents Enfield?
    Mr. Speaker: Christmas is some way off.
    Mr. Pavitt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the previous exchanges, great political capital was made out of my constituency of Brent. I was at the meeting referred to— [Interruption.] I think that you, Mr. Speaker, will acquit me of being a militant or aggressive person. I have had no chance to reply to that exchange. Is there any way in which I can put the record straight? The comments made about the incident are quite out of keeping with my construction of a complex matter.
    Mr. Speaker: I am very sorry that I have been unable to call the hon. Gentleman. I suggest that he tries again next Tuesday.

    House Buyers Bill
    Mr. Bowen Wells: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware that the House Buyers Bill will come before the House next Friday. Several hon. Members will be financially involved in that Bill, in that they are solicitors. You will also recall that when several hon. Members were similarly involved in the Lloyd's Bill Mr. Speaker advised the House about how those affected should vote or conduct themselves. Will you do a similar service to the House this time?
    Mr. Speaker: I fully intend to do so.

Business of the House
3.31 pm
Mr. Neil Kinnock: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business for next week?
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 12 DECEMBER — Until seven o'clock, consideration of private Members' motions.
Afterwards, remaining stages of the Coal Industry Bill and of the Town and Country Planning Bill.
Motion on the eligibility for Release on Licence Order. TUESDAY 13 DECEMBER — Second Reading of the London Regional Transport Bill.
Motion on the European Community Document No. 8922/83 on the multi-annual programme for transport infrastructure.
Motion on the Industrial Training Levy (Construction Board) Order.
The House will be asked to agree the Civil and Defence Votes on Account and the winter Supplementary Estimates.
WEDNESDAY 14 and THURSDAY 15 DECEMBER —Remaining stages of the Telecommunications Bill.
At the end on Thursday, Motions on the Agricultural and Horticultural Co-operation and Grant (Variation) (No. 2) and (No. 3) Schemes.
FRIDAY 16 DECEMBER—Private Members' Bills. MONDAY 19 DECEMBER — Motion for the Christmas Adjournment.
Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund Bill.
The House will wish to know, Mr. Speaker, that, subject to progress of business, it will be proposed that the House should rise for the Christmas Adjournment on Thursday 22 December until Monday 16 January 1984.

Business of the House

  Debate on 13 December:
  Multi-annual transport infrastructure programme Document No. 8922/83.
  Relevant report of the European Legislation Committee See HC 78-v (1983–84) para. 4.]
  Mr. Kinnock: In the light of recent exchanges, may I thank the Leader of the House for at last telling us when Christmas will be? I thank him for the motion to increase the numbers on certain Select Committees. If the motion is opposed tonight, will he allow the House to debate it next week? In addition, will he give an assurance that any statement on regional policy will be made early next week? The House will want to know that there will not be a series of important statements made in the days immediately before the Christmas recess. Unfortunately, such things have occurred in the past.
  Mr. Biffen: I realise that there is anxiety in all parts of the House that a statement on regional policy should be made as soon as possible. I shall bear in mind the desirability of its being made sooner rather than later. However, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will be the first to accept that several statements have to be made before the Christmas recess, and we have to try as best we can to contain them within the timetable.
  The right hon. Gentleman will be aware from the motion on the Order Paper today that we have tried to
  466
  resolve some of the problems that have prevented the Select Committees from being established. If objection is taken to the motion tonight, I shall provide time for a debate on the motion at the end of business on Wednesday 14 December as well as for any matters that my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Sir P. Holland) may request. I note that hon. Members on both sides of the House are anxious to proceed as quickly as possible.
  Mr. Terence Higgins: Is it not true that the winter Supplementary Estimates do not have to be taken by next week and could be delayed? As one of them includes a Supplementary Estimate of about £430 million for the EC, should not the matter be deferred until the Select Committees can take evidence and the Estimates and report to the House?
  Mr. Biffen: I shall certainly consider that point and see whether I can accommodate my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. David Owen: Is it right that we should start the Christmas recess without debating the issue of the Supply days? Is the Leader of the House aware—and is the country aware—that the Labour party has now informed the Liberal party and the Social Democratic party that they will have only one Supply day out of 19? Can this situation possibly be allowed to continue? Will the Leader of the House undertake to have the issue debated on a free vote before Christmas?
  Mr. Biffen: The right hon. Gentleman drew this matter to my attention on an earlier occasion. I cannot add to what I said then—that I could not undertake that time would be made available before Christmas.
  Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: The Leader of the House may recall that, when I was Leader of the House, we experimented with giving Mr. Speaker discretion to limit to 10 minutes speeches made in the later stages of Second Reading debates. As it was well received, will he now give the House an opportunity to decide whether that should be done on a permanent basis, and whether the practice should be extended to other debates?
  Mr. Biffen: I know about my right hon. Friend's experiment, but I think he will agree with me that the Procedure Committee which is in prospect would be the appropriate vehicle to use.
  Mr. Laurie Pavitt: The Leader of the House is responsible not just for the Government Front Bench but for Back Benchers of both parties. I ask him to look at the private Members' Bills which are due for consideration tomorrow and next Friday with a view to reestablishing the previous practice when one knew quite clearly from where an objection came. At one time the Government Whips would indicate whether or not they objected. At the moment one does not know whether it is the Government who are delaying a Bill or one's colleagues.
  Mr. Biffen: My recollection of history does not coincide with that of the hon. Gentleman, but that may make matters worse.
  Mr. Charles Morrison: Many private Members' Bills are of greater interest to many members of the public than some measures introduced by the Government. Would my right hon. Friend therefore consider whether private Members' Bills should receive

  467
  their Second Reading not on a Friday, when most hon. Members wish to be in their constituencies, but on some other day of the week?
  Mr. Biffen: The imminence of Christmas induces me to desist from ungenerous comment on the relative merits of Government and private legislation. My hon. Friend's suggestion is so significant that it should be considered by a Procedure Committee.
  Mr. John Evans: A debate was held last night on a Community document about the protection of workers from noise. Very few hon. Members of any party were able to participate in the debate because of the shortness of the time available. Will the Leader of the House consider bringing this vital subject back to the Floor of the House — next week or shortly after the recess—so that all who wish to speak on it may do so?
  Mr. Biffen: I would mislead the hon. Gentleman if I said that that was a significant likelihood. He and any like-minded colleagues may wish to use all the advantages presented by the debates on the Consolidated Fund Bill on Monday week.
  Sir Kenneth Lewis: Late on Tuesday night the House discussed the report of the Procedure Committee (Finance). The Financial Secretary to the Treasury then made a detailed and courteous speech but made no promise to concede anything that the Committee had proposed. One would hardly have expected him to accept all the Committee's proposals, but I think that as judge and jury in his own cause he behaved somewhat ungenerously. We were discussing the concern of the House of Commons about spending, the control of spending and the administration in general and the hon. Gentleman should have made some promise about action on the Committee's report. In the interests of the House, what does the Leader of the House propose to do to help us?
  Mr. Biffen: I attended the debate and I agree that my hon. Friend spoke with courtesy and persuasiveness. I also have to take account of the fact that the debate concluded without a Division.
  Mr. Ray Powell: I refer to early-day motion 331.
  [That this House expresses alarm and concern at the action of the Manpower Services Commission and the Government in reducing the number of places in the community programme for 1984; and demands an early debate and a reversal of these policies that will substantially reduce employment opportunities for the 1,142,898 who have been unemployed for more than 52 weeks and the prospects of the 3,084,416 unemployed not afforded a chance of even working under the present Manpower Services Commission scheme.]
  In my constituency alone the cut of 64 jobs in one scheme will be the equivalent of closing down a factory. In addition, 800 jobs are to be lost in Mid-Glamorgan and thousands throughout the country. My concern is shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and I hope that there will be time to debate the matter next week.
  Mr. Biffen: I am well aware of the anxieties to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. There can be few hon. Members whose constituency interests are not touched by the present state of the community programme. As an
  468
  experienced campaigner, the hon. Gentleman may like to take advantage of the opportunities that will arise in the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill.
  Mr. Fred Silvester: I refer to my right hon. Friend's reply to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding (Sir K. Lewis) about the report of the Procedure Committee (Finance). Is my right hon. Friend prepared to find a proper day and time for the House to be asked to reach a decision on this matter? My right hon. Friend's attitude to it is somewhat cavalier.
  Mr. Biffen: I do not have a cavalier attitude, but the House must make its judgment on this matter. The debate was held late in the evening, but it began before 10 pm. Debates on many important issues commence later than that.
  My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary responded to the proposals of the Select Committee and a wide-ranging debate took place. I cannot see any prospect that further Government time could be devoted to debating the matter in the immediate future.
  Mr. Doug Hoyle: Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 63 which draws attention to the exploitation of a dedicated group of workers?
  [That this House, noting that the National Health Service hospital pharmacists are still being expected to provide emergency cover without being paid for it, and that they are the only National Health Service profession in this position; deplores the Government's offer of additional funds which would provide a payment of £1·50 for up to 16 hours on call; and demands that the Government allocate sufficient funds to the Pharmaceutical Whitley Council so as to allow them to negotiate emergency duty payments which are commensurate with pharmacists' professional responsibilities and are no lower than those paid to other National Health Service professions.]
  Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Secretary of state for Social Services to make an early statement in the House on the matter?
  Mr. Biffen: I will pass that request to my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. Patrick Cormack: Will my right hon. Friend treat the House to another display of the candour for which he is held in high regard and tell us whether the Government's attitude towards the House Buyers Bill will be one of benevolent neutrality or hostile indifference?
  Mr. Biffen: In demonstration of my well-known candour I can only echo what the Prime Minister said a few moments ago.
  Mr. Robert N. Wareing: As you have invoked the spirit of Christmas, Mr. Speaker, I am encouraged to hope that the Leader of the House wall pay due regard to early-day motion 247, which highlights the plight of many people who are facing higher gas and electricity charges at Christmas. They are in the growing poverty trap being created by the Government's economic policies.
  [That this House condemns the Government's intention to increase gas and electricity prices; and is digusted that millions of people including pensioners, the unemployed,

  469
  the disabled, one-parent families, widows and other groups below the poverty line will be savagely hit by the Government's inflationary method of balancing its budget which the Labour Opposition will oppose inside and outside Parliament.]
  Early-day motion 319 notes that many of those people go without the supplementary benefit to which they are entitled.
  [That this House notes with great concern that the total amount of supplementary benefit unclaimed by persons entitled to it rose from £355 million in 1979 to £760 million in 1981, that 1,390,000 people who were eligible for the benefit in the latter year failed to claim it at any one time, and that the average weekly amount unclaimed was £10·50 for all groups and £18·10 for those under pensionable age; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to take urgent steps to ensure that all those eligible for benefit receive their full entitlement.]
  Will the Leader of the House give the Government an opportunity to discard their Scrooge-like garb before Christmas and initiate a full-scale debate on poverty?
  Mr. Biffen: I am not required to instruct the hon. Gentleman on how to conduct a parliamentary campaign, but if all the signatories to the motion were to ballot for the debates on the Consolidated Fund Bill, no doubt the topic would be debated.
  Mr. John Wilkinson: I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 249 on the Airbus A320 project.
  [That this House congratulates British Caledonian Airways on its recent decision to buy the Airbus A320, 25 per cent. of which should be built in Great Britain thereby creating and safeguarding British jobs and keeping the United Kingdom in the vanguard of civil aviation technology; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to facilitate the participation of British firms in this collaborative project, which is of such crucial importance to the long-term future of the European civil aircraft manufacturing industry.]
  The motion has 150 signatories from Members in all parts of the House. Will my right hon. Friend urge the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to give the project Government funding and support? The German and French Governments are already putting money into the programme.
  Mr. Biffen: I am wiser to stand at this Dispatch Box to try to provide time rather than make policy. I am conscious of the importance of this project and Parliament's desire to be informed further about it. I am conscious that a similar request was made last week by the Leader of the Opposition. I shall, of course, bear in mind the importance of further parliamentary involvement in this matter.
  Several Hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I must protect the business of the House. I shall allow business questions to continue for five minutes longer.
  Mr. Andrew Faulds: In view of the critical situation developing for the arts throughout the country for a number of reasons, such as the damage implicit in the changes that the Government intend to
  470
  impose on metropolitan counties and the GLC, and because of the earmarked moneys for the Arts Council and the Maritime museum's misguided decision to impose entry charges, when will we have an opportunity in the foreseeable future — if not before Christmas, immediately after — to examine this whole range of extremely damaging developments for the arts?
  Mr. Biffen: I note the comprehensive points made by the hon. Gentleman. I will bear that matter very much in mind, but clearly there is no likelihood of such a debate or statement being made this side of Christmas. I shall draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for the arts to the points that have just been made.
  Mr. Tony Marlow: Would it be possible to have an early debate on the cost and time involved in the entry of Spain and Portugal to the EEC? They are fundamental and important issues upon which the House would no doubt like to put its views before the Government make any decision, because it seems to be the only thing that could cause an increase in own resources to be considered by Her Majesty's Government. It may well be better to put them off.
  Mr. Biffen: I agree at once with my hon. Friend that the enlargement of the Community by the inclusion of Spain and Portugal is of great significance for the Community and the United Kingdom because of the changed structure of the Community that will result. I have no doubt that there will be ample opportunities for the matter to be debated during the more general approaches to foreign and Community affairs. I have no specific proposals to make, given the pressures that there are on Government time.
  Mr. Roy Hughes: Can the Leader of the House say when the Government's White Paper on regional aid will be presented? When it is, will he kindly arrange an early debate on it?
  Mr. Biffen: I tried to be as forthcoming as I could to the Leader of the Opposition about the timing of the White Paper. I shall bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's request for a debate, but I think that I can safely say that it will not take place this side of Christmas.
  Mr. Robert Atkins: In view of the important and urgent decisions facing the military aerospace industry directly affecting many constituencies, when may we expect a debate on the Royal Air Force, bearing in mind that we have had debates on the Navy and the Army? I hope that the junior service will not suffer by not having been debated before the end of this parliamentary term.
  Mr. Biffen: It is unlikely that there will be a debate before Christmas. I hope that a debate similar to those on the Army and the Navy can be arranged for the Royal Air Force.
  Mr. Greville Janner: Has the right hon. Gentleman had his attention drawn to early-day motion 49, which now has 179 Opposition signatures?
  [That this House recognises the disgraceful profit made by the Government from fees for British citizenship; and calls for their immediate reduction in line with the Third Report of the Home Affairs Committee of Session 1982–83.]

  471
  The motion draws attention to the disgraceful delay in the Government's implementation of the recommendations of the Home Affairs Select Committee regarding nationality fees. Related to that, can we have a debate upon the way in which visitors to this country are treated, because many visitors from the Asian sub-continent are treated with a lack of dignity and courtesy?
  Mr. Biffen: I appreciate the hon. and learned Gentleman's point. It is likely that we could meet it by reference to the private Members' motions on Monday, the third one of which could easily cover the point. The best advice that I can offer is that he uses his well-established and recognised skills on the opportunities provided by the Consolidated Fund Bill.
  Mr. Andrew MacKay: Bearing in mind last night's events in Brent, will my right hon. Friend find time for the House to debate a motion on free speech and local democracy which would give the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity to condemn wholeheartedly the Labour leaders in Brent who brought that council to a halt by mob rule last night?
  Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend resists the cloying spirit of Christmas and remains combatant on these matters, in which case I tell him that he has plenty of opportunities to exercise his initiatives as a private Member to ensure that the matter remains before Parliament.
  Mr. Mark Fisher: Is there likely to be a statement on the British film industry before Christmas? If there is, can the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance similar to the one that he gave about regional policy, that it will not be smuggled in before Christmas without the House having a chance to consider it fully?
  Mr. Biffen: The most helpful thing that I can do is to refer the hon. Gentleman's point to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
  Mr. Harry Greenway: Bearing in mind the country's interest in the film "The Day After",
  472
  will my right hon. Friend consider the facilities for showing such films and others in the House? This film pulls at all our emotions and looks at the possible post-holocaust position. I believe that it points to the need to increase efforts to achieve multilateral disarmament. The country is very interested in the film, but only a limited number of hon. Members would have been able to see it in the House today if all had turned up.
  Mr. Biffen: I do not believe that I have any responsibility for organising film shows in the House. If I had, I would try to shrug them off as quickly as I could. I take note of what my hon. Friend says. I believe that there will be plenty of other people in the House who would be able to organise such a showing.
  Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) wish to raise the point of order that I stopped him raising earlier, or has it been overtaken?
  Mr. Dave Nellist: It has been overtaken, Mr. Speaker.

  Consolidated Fund Bill
  Mr. Speaker: I wish to make a short statement about the arrangements for the debate on the motion for the Adjournment which will follow the passing of the Consolidated Fund Bill on Monday 19 December.
  Members should submit their subject to my office not later than 9 am on Wednesday 14 December. A list showing the subjects and the times will be published later that day. Normally the time allocated to each subject will not exceed one and a half hours, but I propose to exercise a discretion to allow one or two debates to continue for rather longer, to a maximum of three hours. Where identical or similar subjects have been entered by different Members whose names are drawn in a ballot, only the first name will be shown on the list. As some debates may not last the full time allotted to them, it is the responsibility of Members to keep in touch with developments if they are not to miss their turn.

  National Health Service (Pharmaceutical)
  3.57 pm
  The Minister for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the discussion that I and the Secretary of State have been having on behalf of all the United Kingdom health Ministers with representatives of the pharmaceutical industry on the scope for savings in the NHS drugs bill and other matters of mutual concern.
  Prescription medicines cost the NHS in England about £1,250 million in 1982–83. Drugs account for about 40 per cent. of the total cost of the family practitioner service and about 10 per cent. of the cost of the NHS as a whole. The pharmaceutical industry's profits from NHS sales are governed by the non-statutory pharmaceutical price regulation scheme which was introduced in its present form in 1978. In the words of the published scheme, it is a key objective that
  "safe and effective medicines should be available on reasonable terms to the NHS, but also that a strong, efficient and profitable pharmaceutical industry"
  should exist in the United Kingdom. The industry's present target profit level was set by the Labour Government in 1978. Like our predecessors, we recognise that there is a major and successful industry providing 67,000 jobs and a net balance of exports over imports of around £600 million a year.
  However, the present scheme has run unaltered for over five years. A review of the PPRS and its role in relation to the industry and the NHS was announced earlier this year. After extensive discussion with the industry's representatives and having taken account of the 10th report of the Public Accounts Committee published in April, we have decided to reduce the level of profit from NHS business and the level of sales promotion allowed as an expense under the scheme.
  First, under the scheme each pharmaceutical company participating in it is assigned a target rate of profit, taking account of
  "the circumstances of the individual company, the contribution which it makes or is likely to make to the economy, including foreign earnings, investment, employment or research"
  We have decided that these targets should be reduced by an average of four percentage points, which will represent a saving to the NHS in the United Kingdom of about £40 million a year. We have also decided that the discretion, which our Department allows in certain circumstances when companies exceed their target profit rates, should be tightened and related more closely to a company's circumstances. Companies will be told what their new targets are soon.
  Secondly, the industry will spend about £180 million this year on sales promotion. Some, but not all, of this amount is an allowable expense under the PPRS. Such promotion is funded largely from NHS sales, and we have concluded that the allowable level should be reduced. We propose that companies should be asked to repay to the Department a sum equivalent to a sales promotion expenditure, which exceeds the level allowed under the scheme; and that the industry limit should be reduced from the present level of 10 per cent. of turnover to 9 per cent. in 1985–86. We estimate that when fully implemented
  474
  these measures should reduce actual expenditure on sales promotion by 25 per cent., but we will review this area again to see whether a further reduction can be made.
  All the measures that I have announced will take effect from 1 April next year. In a full year they will produce savings on the NHS drug bill rising on present estimates from £65 million in 1984–85 to well over £100 million in later years. This compares with the industry's total profit from sales in the United Kingdom in 1983 of an estimated £200 million. The changes will mean that the price freeze on drugs — introduced in August as part of the £25 million savings agreed then—will continue, with few exceptions, through 1984–85 and beyond. Furthermore, the price freeze will be at the level established by the 2·5 per cent. cut that we settled in August.
  We have also discussed with the industry the problem of parallel importing of medicines. This occurs when an importer takes advantage of exchange rates and low regulated prices of particular drugs in other countries to import or re-import those drugs into this country in competition with the identical or near-identical products already marketed here. At present, an exemption order under the Medicines Act 1968 is being used by parallel importers, in a way not envisaged when the order was made, to bring into Britain substantial quantities of medicines without a licence. Clearly, there are potential health hazards if a drug has not been properly manufactured or stored, if labels are in a foreign languge, or if there is difficulty in tracing a batch of drugs found to be faulty. We are not aware of any injury to patients so far, but we propose to guard against that possibility.
  We are statutorily required to consult on these matters, and we will therefore shortly issue a consultative document on proposals which will ensure that medicines parallel imported for general dispensing must be licensed under the Medicines Act, either in the ordinary way, or in the case of medicines also licensed in the European Community, through a modified licence to cover such safety matters as storage, labelling and tracing.
  There remains the question of generic substitution, which we have been considering in the context of the PPRS review, as announced earlier this year. The Greenfield committee proposed that a pharmacist should substitute an equivalent generic preparation for proprietary medicine unless the prescribing doctor had specifically said that this should not be done. The committee acknowledged tht it had not taken account of the wider implications, for example, on the pharmaceutical industry, of its recommendation. Consultation of the Greenfield report earlier this year showed professional opinion to be divided on this recommendation, which was only one of 14 recommendations.
  It became clear that many general practitioners were concerned that their patients would be supplied with formulations of drugs that their doctors had not prescribed. General practitioners and pharmacists foresaw problems of divided responsibilities for the treatment of patients. The various procedures considered raise serious practical problems. We have therefore decided not to proceed with generic substitution. We do, however, intend to start a new campaign to encourage generic prescribing by doctors. As to the other recommendations of the Greenfield committee, we have already announced our acceptance of these or referred them to the appropriate educational bodies.

  475
  A number of other matters arising from the review of the PPRS must still be resolved in discussion with the industry. In particular, a study of transfer prices, which are the prices charged by a foreign-based company to its United Kingdom subsidiary, is being conducted by independent consultants, and our Department is undertaking a study of pharmaceutical wholesalers' profit margins.
  In framing the proposals the Government have sought to achieve a balance between the interests of the NHS as customer and the interests of the industry. We recognise the research achievements of the industry and the contribution that it makes to the United Kingdom economy, and we want it to continue to flourish. However, there is an urgent need to contain the drugs bill for the Health Service, which we are also determined to achieve. I hope that the industry will accept this position, as we wish to continue with the price regulation scheme on a non-statutory basis.
  Mr. Michael Meacher: Is the Minister aware that the measures, far from achieving a balance, are a completely inadequate response to a public scandal of enormous proportions— I use those words advisedly. Against a background of deepening cuts in the National Health Service, leading to accelerating hospital closures, redundancies of doctors and nurses, and worsening patient care, is it not outrageous that the drug companies have been permitted by the Government to make profits at the expense of the National Health Service of more than £300 million this year—my figure, rather than the Minister's, is correct—at a rate of return on capital of 25 per cent., thus making it the most profitable industry after oil and advertising?
  Is the Minister further aware that 54 of the 65 companies that supply the NHS are foreign-based, and that the Public Accounts Committee estimated that their profits from the NHS were understated through transfer prices and creative accounting—the Committee's words, not mine —by up to a further £200 million this year? Is he aware that the Public Accounts Committee report of last April stated that nine companies had made £33 million in excess profits—the Committee's phrase, not mine—from the National Health Service in two years; that three or four of the largest companies had been allowed profits of up to a 35 per cent. return on capital employed; and that the smaller companies, which do not manufacture in Britain, were allowed profits of no less than 200 per cent.?
  Is the Minister further aware that the Comptroller and Auditor General, in a highly critical report issued earlier this year, complained that the DHSS had inadequate evidence to assess the industry's efficiency, and that the Department had failed in the administration of the profit control aspect of the price regulation scheme for drugs? In view of that scathing indictment by the official authorities, will the Minister tell the House how he intends to rectify those gross administrative deficiencies? Will he confirm that the new target rate of return, which he was careful not to mention, is still about 20 per cent., which is well above the maximum level recommended by the Public Accounts Committee of 17 per cent? Does he acknowledge that the £40 million that he proposes to save is less than the profit that one company might expect to make from only one successful drug?
  In view of the Minister's frank acknowledgement of the excessive profits made by drug companies, will he
  476
  consider reducing the consequential higher prescription charges, which have increased seven times under the Government?
  Is the Minister aware that the Daily Telegraph, which is not a Socialist magazine, recorded a survey which found that £25 million could be saved by substituting unbranded versions of the branded drugs that cost the NHS £60 million a year? Does he agree that an enormous saving could be made in this area? Does not his rejection of generic substitution owe much more to the arm-twisting of the drug companies than it does to the real concerns of general practitioners, behind which he tries to hide?
  Is not the Minister's statement still a licence to print money for the drug companies, while the Government are trying to drive down the appallingly low wages of some of the lowest paid workers in the National Health Service?
  Mr. Clarke: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is following the practice of his predecessor the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) by reacting with hysterical and exaggerated language to an announcement which is extremely good news for the National Health Service and which represents a substantial saving on the drugs bill.
  What we have negotiated in the proposals that I outlined to the House is part of the Government's policy towards the Health Service. We are seeking to improve its cost-effectiveness in order to maximise the value for money that we obtain from the increasing resources that the Government devote to it, for the benefit of the patients, who will receive better care. Independent consultants have examined transfer prices, because the Government wish to ensure that the figures that we use in our dealings with the pharmaceutical industry are accurate, and that no amount of ingenuity in accounting has obscured the position from which we are negotiating. As is usual with his practice on social security matters as well as on health matters, some of the hon. Gentleman's figures come completely off the top of his head. I am afraid the hon. Gentleman's figures are far less reliable than Treasury figures, DHSS figures or those from the industry.
  In considering the actual rates of return, those for individual companies have to be a matter of commercial confidence. It is known that the overall target rate of return under the system we inherited from the Labour Government was 25 per cent. and above that a so-called grey area with the discretion of a further 10 per cent. What I have just announced reduces the overall target to 21 per cent. and the grey area to one third of whatever is the company's target. The figures the hon. Gentleman quotes — and some he disapproves of are for the more successful companies—were set under rules laid down by the Government of which he was a member. What I have announced is a significant reduction.
  What I have announced represents a saving in a full year of over £100 million on the drugs bill of the National Health Service. The actual profits made by the pharmaceutical industry this year appear to us to be about £200 million. We disallow various costs for the purposes of the scheme. If account were taken of those, the profits might be up to £250 million. Nevertheless, we are making substantial savings in the drugs bill. We expect that pharmaceutical companies will react by cutting costs to some extent, thereby protecting their profits, which is good for investment and employment in this country.

  477
  Against this, the savings we are making are a substantial and significant response to genuine fears. I think that this is a fair balance between the interests of drug users, that is, the National Health Service, and the interests of those who work and earn a great deal of money for the country in the pharmaceutical industry.
  Dr. Brian Mawhinney: Does my hon. and learned Friend accept that the first part of his statement on price freezing and the reduction of profits is welcome and will be seen as a positive contribution to savings in the Health Service? Will he also accept, however, that what he has said on drug substitution is a great disappointment and regrettably will be seen as a triumph for vested interests in the medical and pharmaceutical professions over the needs of patients? Does he agree that there is no reason clinically why substitution should not take place, bearing in mind that hospital doctors already use it, and that until generic prescribing is firmly in place the real savings to the Health Service on the drugs bill cannot be fully manifested?
  Mr. Clarke: I have great respect for my hon. Friend's views on these matters, but I would answer him with a rhetorical question; what is he seeking to achieve in what he advocates? If he is seeking further reductions in the drugs bill, he should bear in mind that the announcement I have made is estimated to save over £100 million per annum on the National Health Service drugs bill. The House must realise that to go beyond that at the expense of the pharmaceutical industry would jeopardise much research-based manufacture in this country.
  On generic substitution, I would accept as the best estimate of what might be saved the figure given by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), that is about £25 million, but we could not achieve that and also make the other savings I have described without causing damage to the industry. If, however, the intention is to improve the prescribing practice of doctors, the best way of doing that is, as we propose, to strengthen our guidance and give further assistance to enable doctors to make their own choices about generic prescribing when they deem it suitable for their patients. Again, I respect my hon. Friend's view on this, but many doctors, though not all, were seriously concerned about a suggestion that they should prescribe one formulation of a drug which they judged suitable and then a pharmacist unknown to them who might dispense the drug anywhere throughout the country would use his judgment to substitute what he thought to be an effective alternative formulation. In hospitals doctors know their pharmacists and can have a hospital policy; I do not think it the analogy with general practitioners is altogether accurate.
  Mr. Jack Ashley: Is the Minister aware that he has adopted a cowardly approach in running away from generic substitution? He cuts a very sorry figure, giving way to vested interests. He has heard neither hysterical language from my hon. Friend nor rhetorical questions. He has heard reasoned requests to change his mind. Will he recognise that the drug industry's demand for protection is a demand for excessive profits which are still far too high? Will he please think again on this important issue?
  Mr. Clarke: If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to save money, then he should realise that by our announcement we are saving the maximum that can be saved. If he wishes to improve prescribing practices, we propose to campaign to do that. We will not be drawn into a vendetta against drug companies and their profits solely for what appear to be totally abstract reasons which some hon. Members feel are worth pursuing.
  Mr. Robert McCrindle: I welcome the Minister's statement indicating considerable savings in expenditure on the National Health Service, but will he disregard to a fair degree the continuing reference to the percentage of profits made by pharmaceutical companies? Will he confirm that a great deal of the so-called profits are reinvested in research and development and that sometimes the development of an effective drug takes many years, so that the percentages which are being bandied about are somewhat illusory?
  Mr. Clarke: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. It is worth bearing in mind that the percentage profit we use for the purposes of the scheme is slightly notional. It is a longstanding convention that historic costs are taken as the basis for it and that is the basis of the figures I have given. When judging the profitability of the industry as a whole, he is right to draw attention to the fact that a great deal of it is necessary to provide an incentive for research and development. Moreover, much of the profits earned by the drugs industry are profits on exports which produce a substantial benefit to the economy of the country.
  Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: Is the Minister aware that there will be widespread condemnation of what will be regarded as an inadequate response to the recommendations of the all-party Public Accounts Committee with the guidance of the Comptroller and Auditor General? That, together with the complete ignoring of the main recommendations of the Greenfield report, will be seen clearly for what it is—a complete and utter sell-out to the drug companies which will still be laughing all the way to their respective banks.
  Mr. Clarke: Before I rose to make the statement I knew perfectly well that whatever I said would be greeted with anger and disappointment by the hon. Gentleman, just as I know perfectly well that there will be a lot of resistance and anger in some parts of the pharmaceutical industry about what I have proposed. That is an inevitable part of the process. The fact is that the savings to the National Health Service drugs bill which I have announced go beyond some of the savings that were recently being urged upon us by some of our critics. They do not fall far short of even the wildest figures that were urged upon me by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) when she spoke for the Opposition.
  Mrs. Jill Knight: Can my hon. and learned Friend say anything about the position of pharmacists in chemists' shops as a result of his statement? Many people will be most anxious that chemists' shops which are badly needed in many areas should not be closed. Does he recognise that, while he has much support for stopping the rate of increase in the drugs bill in the Health Service, he is perhaps shooting the wrong fox because many doctors prescribe drugs over and over again for patients without even bothering to examine them? The waste of drugs in that way is severe.
  Mr. Clarke: The payments we make to pharmacists are on the basis of reimbursements for the cost of the drugs that they supply to patients. Our action on parallel importing will help to meet one of the complaints of the Public Accounts Committee that we sometimes reimburse chemists for more than the amount they have paid for the drugs they have dispensed. Nevertheless, there are problems between ourselves and the pharmacists, most of which were not intended by either side of that negotiating table. I look forward to more negotiations with the pharmaceutical services negotiating committee in the new year both about our present difficulties and about a better form of contract for them for the future. This should help to guard against the closure of rural pharmacies which my hon. Friend is right to be concerned about.
  As to the prescribing practices of doctors, I endorse what my hon. Friend said. It is important that we should act on the other 13 recommendations of Greenfield, as we are already doing, and give further guidance and assistance to doctors in following proper and economical prescribing practices.
  Several Hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. In fairness to the Northern Ireland debates, I intend to allow questions on this important subject to continue until half past four.
  Mr. Clement Freud: While we welcome the advertising cutback on allowable revenue, and the principle of the system, the alliance is bitterly disappointed about the Minister's failure to do anything about generic substitution, as he could have done without alienating the family practitioners, who would probably prefer some generic substitution to the cash limits being imposed. Does he accept that the pharmaceutical industry must remain independent because not one therapeutic substance has come out of the nationalised pharmaceutical industry in the Soviet Union?
  Mr. Clarke: I note what the hon. Gentleman says about generic substitution, but we have reduced the target rate of return on capital by an average of four percentage points to bring it down to about 20 per cent. We have also made significant changes on promotional activity, about which there is strong feeling in the medical profession and among the general public. Given the savings that we can make from the package of measures that I have proposed, generic substitution would not have been a significant or worthwhile addition.
  A number of GPs and pharmacists have raised problems about generic substitution. One is that of the responsibility to patients if anything goes wrong when neither the doctor, the pharmacist, nor the people who pay the pharmacist are clear about what drug has been dispensed to the patient, regardless of what it said on the doctor's prescription.
  I endorse the hon. Gentleman's final comment. Those who attack the pharmaceutical industry simply because it is profit making ignore the fact that it is a highly successful industry, making valuable medical innovations and earning substantial profits overseas. The state-owned industries of the eastern bloc have never produced any significant innovation, and if the Labour party came back into power a state-owned industry in this country would not make progress either.
  Mr. David Crouch: It is not a convention of the House that I have to declare an interest when a
  480
  Minister makes a statement, but I do so. As I think the House knows, I am a director of a pharmaceutical company. I am also involved in the Health Service, being a member of a regional health authority. I therefore have a double interest.
  I was one in the pharmaceutical industry who had recommended to it that it should look again at its figures on sales promotion and profit to see whether they could be tempered in a way similar to the Minister's proposals. I take that view from within the industry. however, I warn my hon. and learned Friend not to go too far. It is possible to go just over the limit in reducing not so much promotion costs but profits, with the result that the industry will find it not worthwhile to continue production of the valuable drugs in this country. [Interruption.] Those who know nothing about the industry can make sneering, jeering remarks, but we are talking about one of the most successful industries, not in making money but in innovating and breaking new ground. My hon. and learned Friend must not go too far in this direction because, although the earnings and profits may seem high at 21 per cent., in its first 10 years a drug does not earn a penny. It takes all of that time to pass the approved list.
  Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend was interrupted by hon. Members who have no knowledge of the pharmaceutical industry to set against his own. I agree that the companies will find the reduction in profit levels and the changes that we have announced on promotional costs significant. We have not only reduced the profit figures but are proposing to change the method by which we control the level of expenditure on sales promotions above the prescribed limit. That will produce a significant reduction in the level of sales promotion on drugs to the benefit of the best companies and the patients. We shall heed my hon. Friend's warnings, but I think that we have struck the right balance between preserving a successful industry and making sure that we use our bargaining influence as a customer to make savings for the NHS.
  Mr. Laurie Pavitt: On the hon. and learned Gentleman's choice of exhortation and campaigning rather than action on generic prescribing, I remind him that every Minister since lain Macleod has tried the same campaign. There have been three separate issues under both Labour and Conservative Governments on special ways in which prescribers' notes and bulletins can be used. Each year, 80 per cent. of the drugs prescribed in the NHS are brand names and the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, formed of qualified dispensing chemists, reckoned that on 10 drugs alone there would be a saving of £25 million.
  In his discussions on promotions, will the Minister pursue three things? First, is it necessary to have one commercial traveller for every nine GPs? Secondly, is it necessary to have 6,600,000 free journals issued every three months to promote drugs? Thirdly, will the hon. and learned Gentleman attempt to stop the racket whereby a commercial traveller pays a doctor £10 for every person he is prepared to have on a new drug, calling it clinical investigation, when it is really sales promotion?
  Mr. Clarke: I realise that I follow an honourable succession of Ministers of Governments of both parties in continuing to campaign on generic substitution. When it comes to professional opinion on generic substitution, I have not claimed that it is in our favour—it is divided.

  481
  The hon. Gentleman will know that the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain had a highly contentious debate on the subject and passed a resolution which it would admit was distinctly inconclusive about what is good professional practice.
  As to the number of travellers or representatives, and the amount of advertising and journals, the hon. Gentleman will find on examination that we have made significant changes in the level of sales promotion allowed and, compared with the actual level of sales promotion, we shall start imposing penalties on future levels at 25 per cent. below that. That could lead to important changes and improvements.
  Sir Kenneth Lewis: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that there are tens of thousands of households in which the bathroom and bedroom cupboards are overloaded with NHS drugs that have never been used, and that this is caused by widespread over-subscribing by doctors? If he can convince the medical profession that it needs to do something about that, he will save the NHS a great deal of money.
  Does my hon. and learned Friend accept that if he can stop doctors having loads of material through their posts, and callers from foreign drug companies trying to sell them all kinds of pills and what-have-you, he will also help the medical profession?
  Mr. Clarke: I agree with all of my hon. Friend's points. For the reasons that I have given, I think that the measures that we have announced will have a beneficial effect on the profession. To put things in perspective, the prescribing of drugs in this country per head of population is lower than that of most Western European countries. One has to persuade the doctors and the patients that a sensible level of prescribing is required, but our doctors and patients are less inclined to look for a pill on every occasion and for every purpose than is the case in other countries of Western Europe.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Minister accept that not all who may be critical of his statement are just out to get at the industry, because we recognise its strength? However, will his attempts to control the promotion of drugs and costs include stricter supervision of the amount of money spent in catering both for doctors and pharmacists who may purchase the drugs? How soon will limits be set on the importing of medicine?
  Mr. Clarke: The costs of so-called hospitality and gifts are not allowed under the scheme at present and have never been accepted as an allowable expense. That kind of activity will continue to be disallowed under the new arrangements that I have announced today.
  Regarding the new proposals on the importation of drugs, we hope to issue the consultation document shortly. Indeed, I hope that the technical details will go out from the Department tomorrow.
  Mr. Meacher: The Minister has not answered two key questions. The Comptroller and Auditor General said that the DHSS machinery for assessing the industry's efficiency was inadequate. What new supervisory mechanisms is the Minister proposing to prevent the profit control mechanism going out of control? Secondly, why
  482
  has he rejected the Greenfield report on generic substitution when a compromise agreement had been reached informally, I understand, with the BMA whereby general practitioners who did not wish for generic substitution by a pharmacist would be able to show that on the prescription?
  Mr. Clarke: On the first point, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is correct to say that the assessment machinery that was introduced by his Government has got absolutely out of control. The only judgment of efficiency that has to be made in the scheme is that of assessing the target rate of return set for each company. It is a difficult task to assess each company in relation to its capital investment and its research base activity in this country, its export earnings and its efficiency. But I think that the job is done effectively and well within the limitations of what is practical. What the Government have announced is a sharp reduction in the resulting cost to the National Health Service.
  On generic substitution the best estimate I have of the savings likely to come from the so-called halfway house that some of the BMA found acceptable is £5 million in a full year. In fact, it did not amount to much more than a re-jigging of the present form upon which the doctor prescribed. It still gave rise to all the problems about responsibility for patients if anything went wrong, as I have already indicated. Given that we are reducing our costs substantially, and that we can proceed to encourage better generic prescribing, I see no point in going in for that kind of compromise proposal worth little money but opening up a considerable amount of professional controversy.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the Minister has given some very long answers and as several Conservative Members and several Opposition Members want to ask questions, I wonder whether you would take, say one question or a couple of questions from Conservative and Opposition Members bearing in mind that I am not anxious to be called but other hon. Members are ahead of me in the queue? In any case, I think it is a sell-out by the Tory party to the Government to finance the Tory party and the Tory Members of Parliament who are directors to line their pockets——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry; I should like to be able to accede to the hon. Gentleman's request, butin fairness to the House I have to protect the Northern Ireland business. The House has had a good run on the statement. No doubt we shall return to the subject on other occasions.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You referred in your comments to protection of hon. Members. Would it not be proper of hon. Members to request that we be protected against Ministers who make their replies in a very elongated form, thereby denying the right not only of opposition Back Benchers but of Conservative Back Benchers to ask their questions? Should it not go on the record that many of us were precluded from asking questions by the Minister's long answers?
  Mr. Speaker: Let us not get into a great argument about this. If the hon. Gentleman had been watching me, he would have seen that I was getting equally exasperated by the length of some questions from Back-Bench Members.
  Mr. Harry Greenway: A number of us represent several hundred people who work in this industry and we ought to be representing them in this matter. When you said at twenty minutes past four, Mr. Speaker, that you would allow the questions to run until half past four, according to my count about five questions were fitted in.
  Mr. Speaker: I think that it would be totally unfair to the House if on every occasion I allowed the questions to run to the end; it would be impossible. I have to protect the subsequent business of the House.
  Mr. Freud: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) asked you to give a ruling on the House Buyers Bill in respect of the eligibility of solicitors who are Members of the House and you said that you would give a ruling. Will you at the same time — and I ask this for the sake of convenience — give a ruling in respect of people intending to purchase houses who are Members of the House because they are equally affected by the Bill and, like solicitors, have a vested interest in it?
  Mr. Andrew MacKay: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would not wish ever to question a decision of yours, Mr. Speaker, but I believe that only four Members of the House still wish to ask questions of the Minister on the statement. I suspect that all of them have constituency interests. As you said earlier that Christmas is getting near, would you give us the benefit of the doubt on this occasion?
  Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that Christmas is not as near as all that. In fairness to the hon. Gentleman, I fully understand his frustration, but this might be said on any day on any statement.
  Mr. Derek Fatchett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The statement on the drugs industry has taken so long because of the lengthy replies. Are you aware that thousands of people outside the House believe that the behaviour of the drugs industry has been a major contributor to the cuts in the Health Service and that they would think the less of——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not certain that that is a matter for me.

  SCOTTISH AFFAIRS
  Ordered,
  That the matter of Electricity in Scotland—Generation and Capacity being a matter relating exclusively to Scotland be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee for its consideration. —[Mr. Biffen.]

  Northern Ireland (Appropriation)
  4.38 pm
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Butler): I beg to move,
  That the draft Appropriation (No. 3) (Northern Ireland) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 23rd November, be approved.
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) wishes to raise a point of order.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for defending the rights of the Northern Ireland Members to have their say. We appreciate that.
  On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could you confirm for our guidance that if the first order is debated, say, until eight or nine o'clock the remainder of the time until half past eleven will be available for debating the second order, but that another hour and a half will not be added?
  Mr. Speaker: I confirm what the hon. Member has said, that the debate on the first order may go until half past eleven. If it goes until half past eleven, the second order will have an hour and a half. If the first order finishes earlier than that, the second order may go until half past eleven.
  Mr. William Ross: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You kindly indicated to me that certain matters in the first order are substantial and justify wide debate. By inference, the remainder must be considered not to justify wide debate. One of the items that apparently do not justify wide debate is the question of control. That has caused considerable concern and debate not only in the House but in Northern Ireland. I seek your guidance as to what can be debated on the first order and at what length.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Further to that point of order; I wish to make a submission, Mr. Speaker. Your were good enough to write to my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) and you may have written to other hon. Members likely to take part in the debate, intimating what might or might not be regarded by the Chair as in order in the debate upon the Appropriation Order. This has been the subject of observations from the Chair at the commencement of similar debates in the past.
  Might it be helpful both to the Chair and to hon. Members, since these orders are available a considerable time before the debates—I believe that this order was laid on 23 November—if art indication of the view of the Chair could be given at an earlier date? An indication is often given by hon. Members to the Government of subjects which they would hope to raise. If it was within their knowledge what would and would not be regarded as in order, it would be possible to give that indication to the Government with more accuracy and certainty. I hope, therefore, that it might become a practice, if only an informal practice, in future where the minor Appropriation Orders—I am referring not to the annual Appropriation Order, but to the other Appropriation Orders—are for debate for an indication to be given by the Chair generally of its views upon order in the compass of that Appropriation Order.
  Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and I will answer his point

  485
  of order first. He will understand that it is my wish to be as helpful as possible to Back Benchers, and therefore I readily accede to his request to send the information earlier than it was sent today. In sending it today, I was seeking to be helpful to hon. Members in drawing their attention to what would be in order and what might be out of order, so saving time in the debate; if the Chair must constantly be interrupting hon. Members while they are speaking, that wastes time.
  To clarify the matter, I will read from the letter:
  "The scope of this order is relatively narrow and policy questions should be raised only in connection with three matters; agricultural support measures, assistance to the shipbuilding industry and the housing benefits scheme. Four of the seven Supplementary Estimates are for relatively modest sums and only the reasons for the increases sought should be raised."
  Is that clear?
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Further to that point of order. I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for the announcement that you have made, and I listened to it with great care, as, indeed, I read with great care what you said in your letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross). I wonder whether in future consideration might be given to the distinction implied in the use of the words "issues of policy", as issues of policy may be involved in increases sought for a particular purpose under a particular sub-head. There is, therefore, still a difficulty that hon. Members might confront in deciding whether the increase under a particular sub-head did or did not open up the whole of that service or open up no more than a particular decision of policy taken within that service by the Government.
  Mr. Speaker: To save the time of the debate today, the simplest answer would be for me to give further consideration to what the right hon. Gentleman has said. It is my wish to be as helpful as possible in all these matters, and I shall certainly consider what he said so as to make the situation clearer in future.
  Mr. William Ross: Further to the point of order that I raised earlier, Mr. Speaker. You said in your reply to me that some of the sums concerned were modest. May I draw your attention to the fact that, although an individual sum may be modest, it may nevertheless have a considerable impact on a matter of policy?
  Mr. Speaker: I used the word "relatively"; and that is a relative word.
  4.43 pm
  Mr. Butler: The order is being made under paragraph 1 of schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974. In view of some of the points that have just been made, it might be helpful if I said that I shall be taking the House through the order and will be referring to some of the smaller issues. Whether that will encourage hon. Members to comment on those points when they make their contributions remains to be seen.
  The purpose of the draft order is to authorise the issue of £107 million out of the Consolidated Fund of Northern Ireland in respect of the autumn Supplementary Estimates of Northern Ireland Departments and to appropriate this sum for the purposes shown in the schedule. Hon. Members will recall that sums on account were approved on 10 March and in respect of the autumn Supplementary
  486
  Estimates of Northern Ireland that the balance of the 1983–84 main Estimates was approved by the House on 7 July; together these amounted to £2,622 million.
  The present draft order will bring the total Estimates provision for the year to £2,729 million. Detailed information about the provision sought can be found in the autumn Supplementary Estimates volume, copies of which have been placed in the Vote Office.
  The draft order covers only seven out of the 42 Votes of Northern Ireland Departments. Major provision is sought in respect of the housing benefits scheme, which is already in operation in Great Britain, and I hasten to say that this is not new money, since assistance with housing costs was formerly provided through supplementary benefit and rent and rate rebates. There are also significant additions to existing services, notably the special aid for agriculture announced to the House earlier in the year, and assistance for Harland and Wolff Ltd., for which only a token amount had been provided in the main Estimates. I shall revert to those matters shortly.
  As I have said before on these occasions, we are endeavouring to keep Northern Ireland in the most favourable position to benefit, along with the rest of the United Kingdom, from the increase in world economic activity that is expected during the remainder of 1983 and 1984. When the United Kingdom experiences economic revival, there are spin-off benefits for Northern Ireland. The steady 3 per cent. growth rate in United Kingdom GDP and the expectations for controlled or declining inflation next year augur well for Northern Ireland industry. At the moment, some reports indicate that Northern Ireland manufacturing industry is now holding up in employment terms, and generally output and other trends are reported to have improved. However, it is absolutely essential that we continue to do as much as possible to encourage industrial investment in Northern Ireland and to reinforce the effects of the economic trend. The economic initiative announced earlier this year, with its additional support measures and incentives, such as corporation tax relief grants and 100 per cent. industrial derating, is promising to be of great help in our efforts.
  The combination of economic recovery, particularly in America, and the efforts of the Industrial Development Board and many others, such as the all-party and partnership missions, have brought about a greatly heightened intensity of industrial development inquiries and activity, and a measurement of that is in the number of visits being entertained in Northern Ireland at present, running at a rate five times that of last year.
  In the social field, with the introduction of housing benefits, we are maintaining the common system of social benefits that applies throughout the United Kingdom. The special aid for agriculture, the assistance to Harland and Wolff and other provisions for industrial support are evidence of our willingness to take account of the special needs and circumstances of Northern Ireland, even at a time when public expenditure as a whole is under constraint. Taken together, they demonstrate yet again the Government's continuing commitment to Northern Ireland.
  When I introduced the order for the main Estimates on 7 July, I reminded the House of the extent of the additional special aid to the Northern Ireland agriculture industry that would be made available in the 1983–84 financial year. I also made it clear that the necessary provision for these special measures would be taken in Supplementary

  487
  Estimates. The additional provision required is now sought in these Supplementary Estimates for Class I, Votes 1 and 2. This special aid from national funds is, of course, supplemented by special assistance from the EC.
  An additional £0·8 million is sought for continued measures to develop beef cattle production. This includes about £0·5 million towards subsidies for the liming of grassland and £0·3 million for the beef development programme. This latter aid has allowed the charge for artificial insemination to be held below cost, the importance of that being that demand has been buoyant and there has been a consequential quality improvement in breeding cattle.
  Further, £5·5 million is included to provide for the continuation of the milk consumer subsidy which enables a higher wholesale price to be fixed for milk going for liquid consumption, thereby ensuring that consumers in Northern Ireland do not have to pay more than consumers in Great Britain.
  Approval to a total of nearly £2·5 million is sought for assistance to the intensive livestock sector; £2 million of this aid is to cover payments, linked to the level of employment, to operators of licensed pig and poultrymeat processing plants and egg packing stations, while continuation of the subsidy on transport costs of egg shipments to Great Britain accounts for about £0·4 million. A further £2·5 million is required to continue grants for the improvement of pasture under the grassland scheme. That was introduced specially last year to increase productivity in areas outside the less favoured areas.
  The total additional provision sought for agriculture is partly offset by a decrease in expected compensation payments on the brucellosis and tuberculosis eradication schemes resulting directly from the present favourable animal diseases position. It is worth reminding the House of the importance that is attached to the "disease-free" status of livestock in Northern Ireland. This provides a very important underpinning of the Province's ability to market its produce and requires a considerable input and continuing close vigilance by all concerned with the industry. Their success should not go unnoticed.
  As for the future, I recognise that a great deal of anxiety has been raised in the agricultural community as a result of the first proposals for changes to the common agricultural policy put forward by the Commission following the Stuttgart summit. I recognise and understand that anxiety, but it is clear that we must get a satisfactory solution to the problem of the United Kingdom's budget contributions to the European Community. This includes positive steps being taken to deal with the structural surpluses in agriculture, as these have been the cause of so much heavy expenditure by the Community.
  Some of the Commission's ideas have not been finally formulated, and in any case it is likely that many of its proposals will be amended considerably during the negotiations. It is just not possible at this stage to speculate on what changes might be made. However, hon. Members will be aware of the statement made yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on the progress, or lack of progress, of the negotiations. I assure the House that the Government will be careful to ensure that the agriculture industry in the United Kingdom in general, and in Northern Ireland in particular, is not unfairly disadvantaged compared to that in other member states. My noble Friend, the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, will
  488
  be examining all developments to assess their impact and to ensure that any special difficulties with Northern Ireland are taken into account.
  I should like now to deal with the industrial support measures covered by Class II, Vote 3. At main Estimates stage a token provision only was taken under sub-head B2 in respect of Harland and Wolff. We are now taking a provision of £42·2 million for assistance to that shipyard. The yard presently employs about 5,300 workers. This sum is further evidence of the Government's recognition of that company's importance to the Northern Ireland economy. Hon. Members will note that the provision of £42·2 million is £5 million less than the total level of support required last year, and, as such, is a welcome if small improvement.
  The Government recently authorised the company to take an order for four 10,000-tonne refrigerated cargo vessels for the Blue Star Line. This order was vital for the company's future. It is clear that Harland and Wolff continues to be heavily dependent on public support. The market for merchant ships is at its worst for several years and it is essential that the need for this support is reduced by every means at the yard's command. I am glad to say that, under its new chairman and chief executive strenuous and successful efforts are being made to cut costs and improve productivity. A more aggressive marketing policy has been adopted — the recently announced licensing agreement with the Japanese shipbuilders IHI is a particularly notable illustration of this—and I am glad to say that the yard has a good reputation among shipowners.
  An increase of some £3·5 million at sub-head DI is sought to top up the existing provision of £37·2 million for standard capital grants to industry in Northern Ireland. A higher than anticipated level of demand is behind this increase, and there is some encouragement in the fact that industrial investment has exceeded our expectations in that area. We are also seeking an increase of £2·7 million in the budget of the Local Enterprise Development Unit, of which £300,000 relates to administrative costs, and £2·4 million to grants and loans paid to industry.
  The reasons for these increased provisions lie quite simply in the dramatic increase which the past two years have seen in the success rate of the LEDU's promotion of small businesses. The figures speak for themselves. It resulted in record job promotions of 2,550 in 1982–83. For the current year the LEDU has kept up this momentum and is well on its way to exceeding its target of 3,100. The volume of interest in small business start-up and development in Northern Ireland, evident not only in the LEDU's performance but in the continuing high level of inquiries which the unit is attracting from those wishing to set up in business, sounds a real note of optimism against what is too often a gloomy picture on the jobs front in Northern Ireland.
  At the LEDU's work load has increased, its board and management have been concerned to ensure that the quality of service offered to client companies should not deteriorate. During the year steps were taken to expand and improve the existing wide range of services available to small businesses, and new measures such as the technical inquiry service, the new enterprise workshop, and the design consultancy service, have been introduced.

  489
  One of the major new initiatives taken in the Province this year was the recently launched local enterprise programme, which is designed to maximise the efforts of local economic development groups.
  The LEDU will co-ordinate that activity. I personally welcome this, because I believe that it is an example of self-help in local communities with local politicians and business men working together in nearly al cases for the common good of their areas.
  I should like to take a brief look at the future of the LEDU. I anticipate some strengthening of the LEDU's staff and a further increase in its industrial development budget to match what I hope will be a further expansion in its activity.
  I should like to mention the modest provision of £200,000 in the Estimates for the energy conservation scheme, which was announced in March 1983 as part of a package of additional measures introduced at that time. The scheme seeks to assist industry and commerce to reduce costs through the implementation of worthwhile energy conservation projects. It provides for grants of up to 30 per cent. towards the cost of approved projects, and up to 50 per cent. in relation to technical advice.
  I have been encoraged by the response to the scheme to date. Since its inception on 1 June, more than 320 inquiries have been received by the Department of Economic Development, and 50 applications have already been submitted involving total project costs of £4·2 million over the next few years. It is estimated that energy saving arising from these projects will come to £1·3 million a year. The scheme is already having the desired effect of making Northern Ireland industry and commerce more competitive.
  I should like to move now to the Votes of the Department of the Environment for which supplementary provision is being taken. An additional £3·8 million is required to finance increased expenditure for Class VI, Vote 3, which covers the Consolidated Fund contributions payable to local revenues.
  The additional grant is needed for two reasons. First, about £1·5 million is necessary to meet the cost to district councils of increasing derating for industrial premises from 75 to 100 per cent., which was introduced as part of the incentive package to which I referred. The total benefit to industry of this derating is £7 million a year. This has been most helpful to companies' cash flow and it also represents a continuing advantage, rather than a one-off payment. It also allows us to promote Northern Ireland as a place with "no local taxes".
  Secondly, £2·3 million is required to meet special circumstances arising this year in relation to the resources element of the general grant. The resources element is calculated by means of a statutory formula and population levels are a key element in the calculation. The population figures used for the original grant calculation for 1983–84 were based on preliminary estimates pending further investigation of the 1981 census figures. However, a subsequent statistical review of figures for the non-enumerated population produced significant increases in estimated population sizes in a number of council areas. In these circumstances it is considered right and proper to make additional provision for those councils whose populations — or, at least, whose population figures—have been adjusted upwards.
  490
  Turning now to Class VI, Vote 4, which covers expenditure on rating, records, registrations, surveys and administration matters, an increase of £1·4 million is sought mainly to cover expenditure on general administration. Last year a major reorganisation exercise was undertaken on the rate collection system, the central feature of which was the computerisation of rating records and collection systems. Only token provision for the necessary capital expenditure on computer equipment was made at main Estimates stage, since exact costs were not know then. The present Supplementary Estimates seek to include, inter alia, provision to cover the actual requirement of £0·8 million in the current year. Total expenditure is greater than that, but it is estimated that reorganisation and computerisation will save about £1 million a year.
  Provision is being sought to meet increased expenditure in the social security field in Class X, Vote 2, noncontributory benefits, and in Class X, Vote 4, administration and miscellaneous services. The increased provision sought for non-contributory benefits is £41 million. Of this, £30·3 million, as I explained in my opening remarks, is attributable to the introduction of the housing benefits scheme in Northern Ireland from 21 November 1983. Prior to the introduction of the scheme assistance with housing costs was provided mainly through supplementary benefit and through rent and rates rebates or rent allowances provided by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive or Department of the Environment. This is therefore not new money, but we were able to provide more generous transitional protection against the inevitable small variations in individual circumstances and to introduce earlier than in Great Britain a higher needs allowance for families with dependent children.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Will the Minister of State indicate where the rebate, so to speak, appears, if it appears at all, in the Estimates? He has said that the £30·3 million is not new money, but in his concluding remarks he appeared to refer to some additions to what would otherwise have been paid. Presumably, therefore, there should be a decrease under other provisions, corresponding to the greater part of the £30 million. I wonder whether he can satisfy inquisitive seekers by saying where that might be hidden.
  Mr. Butler: This is not entirely a straightforward matter. I do not seek to duck answering the right hon. Gentleman's question, but, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, who will reply to the debate, happens to have direct responsibility for the Department concerned, I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman will receive a fuller and better answer from him than from me. The right hon. Gentleman's question is a perfectly fair one, and essentially there is a transfer between Departments which involves the Housing Executive. I believe that he would like to have more detail than I am able to supply from the information that is now available to me. I know that my hon. Friend will seek to do his best to satisfy what the right hon. Gentleman has described as his inquisitiveness.
  The estimate of benefit expenditure under Class X, Vote 2 includes a figure of £336,000 for improved transitional protection arrangements and an increased needs allowance for children from November. This represents transitional enhancement of the Northern

  491
  Ireland scheme, the cost of which is contained within the existing total of Northern Ireland public expenditure. Some £1·6 million is due to a rise in the numbers receiving attendance allowance and the remaining £9 million falls in the supplementary benefit area and is required mainly because of an increase in the numbers of beneficiaries. Increased provision sought for administration is £1·8 million and reflects mainly what is required to meet initial and continuing costs incurred by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive in the administration of housing benefits. It is now estimated that the cost of social security and housing benefits paid from moneys voted by Parliament or paid direct from the national insurance fund will amount to £1·1 billion in the current year.
  I have followed the tradition of these debates in taking the House through the Estimates and indicating the Government's thinking that lies behind them. In some instances I have indicated how I see the future. My hon. Friend and I will be ready to listen to the contributions of those who are fortunate enough to catch the eye of the Chair.
  5.6 pm
  Mr. Peter Archer: The House will be grateful to the Minister for his careful enunciation of the Government's reasoning behind the order. I appreciate the constraints upon what we can properly debate, but the Opposition welcome the opportunity to debate issues that they believe are of great importance to the people of Northern Ireland. We do not oppose the order. Indeed, our criticism is that we believe that it is inadequate to meet the problems. The somewhat self-congratulatory picture which the Minister painted at the outset of his speech was not readily recognisable to me as the Northern Ireland that I visited last week.
  Northern Ireland is an area of real deprivation which fully merits its designation by the EC as an area of special priority. Unemployment stands at 21·5 per cent. The number of people in receipt of unemployment benefit in October was the highest for any October on record. In Strabane, unemployment is nearly 40 per cent. For those in work there is little more comfort. In April 1981, the latest month for which I have been able to trace figures, average weekly earnings for the whole of Britain were £140·50 for men and, sadly, £91·40 for women. The corresponding figures for Northern Ireland were £129·70 and £88·50. Last year 11 per cent. of the work force in Northern Ireland earned less than £75 a week. Yet we are speaking of an area in which retail prices are higher than those in any other part of Britain.
  Fuel prices in particular represent a major burden. The Minister properly mentioned the energy conservation scheme, and it is welcome so far as it goes. But the subsidy arrangements for electricity prices, which were welcomed some time ago, have the effect only of holding prices in line with the highest prices elsewhere in Britain. Northern Ireland prices are still 8 per cent. above the national average.
  For many families there will be little to celebrate this Christmas and precious little with which to celebrate it. The violence which desecrates and shames the politics of Northern Ireland must derive partly from a sense of grievance and from the despair and frustration that stem from the economic factors—[Interruption.] It seems that there is some dispute about that proposition on the Unionist Bench.
  492
  I am not suggesting that the wicked men who thrive on murder and whose plan is to escalate the troubles would change their ways if the economic problems were solved. But I believe that they are helped by support from some sections of the community, especially young people, who are not wicked, who are fundamentally decent, but who despair of seeing a solution to their problems through constitutional democratic politics. They feel that there is nothing for them in supporting law and order, and they turn in frustration to anyone who appears to offer a more dramatic solution.
  Even leaving aside the legacy of blood and suffering, we are debating a total Estimate of £107 million. The cost of terrorism to the United Kingdom since 1969 has been assessed at £9 billion. That figure is disputed, but on any showing it is substantially in excess of the sums that we are debating today. If those sums had been available for investment, for the creation of jobs and to meet the urgent social needs of the Province, much of our debate would have been superfluous.
  Whatever the value of political and constitutional discussions—and I believe they must go on, because if we stop discussing seeking areas of agreement, and exploring activities in which the various groups and interests may join together, however reluctantly, we destroy the hope of finding solutions within a constitutional framework — we have to remove the grievances not only because it is unjust and unjustifiable that people should suffer them, but because the despair that they generate may be the breeding ground for further violence.
  It is pleasing to see in the order provision for a subvention to the Local Enterprise Development Unit. Since it was established in 1971, I understand that it has provided about 15,500 jobs. It is true that not all of them have been taken up. I understand that the total take-up of jobs provided by public subvention throughout Northern Ireland is about 60 per cent. When the Under-Secretary replies, perhaps he will tell us broadly the proportion of the take-up of jobs provided through the LEDU. But on any showing, it adds up to a substantial increase in human happiness.
  But the most important factor in determining the prospects for small businesses is the economic climate. If assembly plants are not calling for components, the small firms making the components cannot prosper. When the market is falling, those companies which are too small to diversify are most at risk.
  The Opposition put to the Secretary of State and to the Under-Secretary of State the argument which they put to the Government generally. That argument was spelt out in the document "The Trade Union Alternative", which was produced at the beginning of this year by the Northern Ireland committee of the Irish Congress of Trades Unions. The committee asked that the efforts of the LEDU and the industrial development board should be augmented by substantial injections of Government money into the public services. It argued that development should he planned over five-year periods and that the incentives and investment should encourage expansion not just where it happens to be suggested, but in those activities and areas that are likely to promote the objectives which we wish to achieve. It argued also that subsidies should be judged on their effect in creating jobs, in meeting demands that are known to exist, and in boosting the economy.

  493
  One obvious area for public investment is energy, to bring down the burden of high energy prices which industry has to bear. We are told that that would be inflationary.
  Mr. Butler: We are interested to know what the right hon. and learned Gentleman would suggest to improve the position. I am sure that he is aware that at the moment about £60 million is spent on holding energy prices down to the highest level obtaining in Great Britain. Is he saying that his policy would be to reduce them further?
  Mr. Archer: I am saying two things. First, a case could be made to reduce those prices further, especially in Northern Ireland, because of the specific problems in the Province. Very properly, the Minister echoed my point that energy prices are reduced to the highest level obtaining in Great Britain, which is 8 per cent. above the average.
  Secondly, we make the same criticism of Government policy in Northern Ireland as we do of Government policy in the United Kingdom generally. I must not stray outside the rules of order, but it has been said that the proposal is inflationary. That is a profound misconception. It is certainly inflationary to put money into people's pockets to buy more goods when there is a limit on the goods available. But if the reason why the goods are not available is that no one has the money to buy them and if people are waiting to produce them as soon as they are required, that is not inflationary.
  We have argued all that before. It has been argued in a wider context by abler advocates than me. I believe that their arguments fell on deaf ears. If I have managed to persuade Conservative Members and Ministers within the Northern Ireland Office, I would not expect them suddenly to announce a recantation. I should be happy if they pleaded the case quietly within the confines of the Government.
  We are pleased for those reasons to see the proposals in Class X. They will inject some purchasing power into the pockets of people in Northern Ireland. I doubt whether a subvention of this order will make a great impact on the problem, but it would be helpful if the Under-Secretary could tell the House how much of the sum in Class X it is proposed to allocate specifically to housing benefits. If a breakdown of that figure is available, I have not been able to trace it.
  The transfer of responsibility for housing benefits from the DHSS to the housing authorities has brought with it a great deal of hardship, for reasons that have been canvassed in the context of the whole of the United Kingdom. First, the scheme is more complicated than the one that it replaced. It is always difficult for benefit recipients to calculate the benefit to which they are entitled. This one would be beyond the calculating powers of almost anyone who has not possessed of a computer. Secondly, for some families, this scheme means a fall in total income. A change that is canvassed as an administrative transfer but which actually reduces the end product must be unacceptable by any standards.
  The housing problems that are evident throughout the whole of the United Kingdom—not least in the area that I have the honour to represent in the west midlands—bite harder in Northern Ireland because of the history of housing there. It is general knowledge that for many years
  494
  housing in Northern Ireland was a neglected subject. In the 1970s, in Belfast alone, 30,000 houses were declared unfit for habitation. Since it was established, the Housing Executive has made commendable efforts to redeem the position, and I happily pay tribute to it. It has earned tributes from all those who have had occasion to evaluate those houses. But by 1981, there were still three times as many unfit houses in Northern Ireland proportionately as in England and Wales.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman acknowledge that in the last year of the Stormont Administration there were 14,000 new housing starts? We have not come near that pattern since those days.
  Mr. Archer: Far be it from me to comment on where the responsibility for those figures lies. I appreciate that within Northern Ireland there are debates as to where the responsibility lies and what might have happened had a different constitutional course been taken. I am prepared to leave that matter to be debated by other hon. Members.
  The Housing Executive in its annual report to March 1983 was able to record that the numbers on the waiting lists had fallen to 23,755—a far from acceptable figure. However, very properly and honestly, the Housing Executive has pointed out that that fall was due, at least in part, to a decrease in demand, and that that was a consequence of inadequate incomes. The Housing Executive stated:
  "There may be a greater willingness, in very adverse economic circumstances, to tolerate the discomforts of sharing and over-crowding; and there may well be an increasing wittiness to endure the low space standards and poorer amenities of older housing rather than face sharply increased rents."
  It then spelt that out:
  "It does not seem improbable that there is a direct causal connection between the sharp decline in waiting-lists for public sector houses and the even sharper increase in public sector rents which has taken place over the same period."
  It then said something even more worrying:
  "It has been said, and not without evidence to support it, that only those in well-paid jobs, or those on full social security benefits, can now afford the rent of a new Housing Executive dwelling."
  The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Chris Patten): Another reason for the fall in the number on the waiting list is the increase in the number of people in Northern Ireland who have been able to buy their homes in the past few years. There has been a fall in the number on the waiting list of about 36 per cent. over the past three years. In the first nine months of this year there were 5,300 new starts in the private sector. It looks as if there will be record figures this year. I beg the right hon. and learned Gentleman to realise that that in itself has a considerable and commendable effect on the waiting list.
  Mr. Archer: I should be reluctant to enter into a debate between the Northern Ireland Office and the Housing Executive. I thought that the Minister was underlining the point that the Housing Executive made. Those who can buy their own homes and those who are on full social security benefits may not face the problem but those in between have the problem that the Housing Executive is endeavouring to spell out. I should not have thought that that was a reason for congratulating those who have responsibility for these matters.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will be interested to know from those who

  495
  represent constituencies in Northern Ireland that there is absolutely no discernible class or wealth distinction characterising those who purchase their own homes. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will find that in Northern Ireland house ownership spreads through all classes and callings. The deduction that he is drawing, possibly with English conditions in mind—that those who purchase their own homes belong to superior social or income classes—is inapplicable to the Province.
  Mr. Archer: Of course, I respect the experience of the right hon. Gentleman, who, I am certain, knows his constituency well. But the fact remains that many people are in publicly provided houses in Northern Ireland, and there is a substantial waiting list, to which I referred. If it were easy for them to solve their problems by buying their own houses, I find it difficult to believe that they would not have done so. It may not be a class thing, but it is certainly a financial thing.
  Mr. Chris Patten: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Archer: I shall give way. I apologise that I am taking longer than I expected to make my speech, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but that is because I have given way such a lot.
  Mr. Patten: This is an important point. The overwhelming success in the increase of owner-occupation in Northern Ireland is low-cost housing. When he looks at the figures, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will find that the effect of things such as the co-ownership schemes has been substantial in giving low-paid people the chance to own their own homes for the first time. Regardless of partisan debate about home ownership or the private sector, I think that we should commend that.
  Mr. Archer: Of course I commend any attempt to solve the problem in the way that the Minister mentioned. All that I need for the argument that I am seeking to adduce is the fact that a substantial number of people in Northern Ireland are in publicly provided housing and many more wish to be in publicly provided housing. They at least have the problems to which I alluded. If there are some who, fortunately, are not confronted with those problems, we can only be pleased that that is so. But that does not destroy the argument that I am making.
  I appreciate that the Housing Executive, in its report, expresses the hope that some of the burdens will be alleviated by the new rent scheme, but that entails simply a transfer of burdens among tenants. If some tenants face hardship because their incomes are insufficient to meet their rents, the burden of rectifying that should fall upon the whole community, not simply upon their fellow tenants.
  For many families, the situation is made worse by two other factors. The first relates to the cuts in public services, particularly the NHS. I realise that there are constraints on how far that matter can be debated, but it was said earlier that there had been an increase in the money subvented to the NHS. Of course we appreciate that. We also appreciate the fact that the Government need to spend more money on the Health Service even to maintain standards at their present levels, not only because of inflation but because there is a higher proportion of elderly people than there used to be and more handicapped people are now surviving because of advances in medical science, new forms of
  496
  treatment can be offered, saving people's lives or totally transforming their lives by offering them activities that previously they could not enjoy. To keep pace with all that, it would have been necessary to spend an additional 1·5 per cent. per year on the Health Service. That would have been running to stay in the same place.
  I understand that the Government have ordained that growth should be 0·5 per cent., plus a further 0·5 per cent. if the Health Service can make savings elsewhere in its own budget. That means that jobs have to be cut. So not only are the suffering deprived of the services that they need, but those who could provide those services are added to the lengthening dole queues. Money which they could have spent on providing employment for others is lost to the economy. So it is not a question of whether money should have been spent on providing public services or on investment to provide jobs. The same money could have achieved both purposes. Of course, that is equally true in many other areas.
  One consequence was alluded to earlier today by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). The home help service has had to be reduced. In one sub-office in Belfast, 550 hours a week have been cut from the payroll. Surely that is false economy. Unless members of the family are able and willing to look after elderly patients, people who might have been discharged to their own homes where, with a little help they could have managed, and been happier, will now have to be kept in hospital and occupy beds at much greater public expense.
  The second factor which exacerbates the situation is the Payments for Debt (Emergency Provisions) Act 1971, to which some of the benefits will be subjected. It was passed to enable debts due to public authorities to be deducted directly from state benefits or, for public employees, from wage packets. Of course people ought to pay their debts, but it seems that the scheme is being used increasingly to manage the whole budget of some low income families. It is causing great resentment.
  In 1980 the Government further introduced the rent and fuel direct payment scheme. Sometimes as much as £40 per week is deducted before the recipient obtains anything in cash. We all have to live within our income, but those of us on higher incomes have a whole range of banking services at our disposal. We can raise short or long-term loans. We can find ways to tide ourselves over periods of difficulty. It is hard to envisage the problems of people who depend entirely upon the cash that is put into their hands at the end of each week. Sometimes, if they can have cash two days earlier than they have to pay it out, that can tide them over until more cash comes with pay day, so that they have a little cash in hand.
  We heard recently of a ward orderly in Belfast who, after all the deductions from her pay packet, received in cash £8 per week. I hope that the Minister can tell us whether an investigation is under way into the way in which those schemes work and their impact on people's lives.
  I was going to say something about agriculture, but I have no doubt that other hon. Members will speak about it. Having given way, I have occupied a great deal of the time of the House. Agriculture is the largest single industry in Northern Ireland. We welcome the subvention as far as it goes. Despite the reduction in jobs, agriculture still employs about 3·5 per cent. of the working population. In recent years it has been hit by the high cost of cereals in the EC. It is now threatened with the removal of the beef

  497
  variable premium scheme and the calf premium scheme. It is further threatened with the super-levy on milk, based on a 1981 base line, which is misleading for reasons that are well known. I mention it only to say that the Opposition would support the Government in any measure to resist those further burdens on agriculture in Northern Ireland.
  Today, hon. Members representing constituencies in Northern Ireland will tell the House and the Government of their constituents' problems. They will argue for measures to make a real impact on those problems. That is what constitutional politics are about. I believe that the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland would wish to look for redress of their difficulties within the sovereignty of Parliament and the rule of law. If they can be assured that there is hope in that direction, those who offer instead the bullet and the bomb will be ignored. But if that hope is denied, there will be some, particularly among the young, who will be tempted by spurious remedies, and terrorists will be able to claim that they have roots in the community. That is one reason why it is important that the economic ills of Northern Ireland should be cured, but it is not the only reason. The message should not go out from this House that the Government propose to do something for Northern Ireland just because they regard it as a problem. They should meet those needs because it is right and proper to do so.
  5.29 pm
  Mr. William Ross: I congratulate the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box in a Northern Ireland Appropriation debate. He is a new face in this debate, so we all listened to him with interest. However, I was forced to the conclusion that he still has a lot of digging to do before he fully understands housing conditions in Ulster and the housing situation generally in Ulster. I am sure that when he comes to a fuller understanding of the housing conditions and of the people who live there he will realise exactly what has been done in recent years, what was done in distant years past, and what remains to be done.
  This is always an interesting and informative debate, and I do not intend to take up too much time. However, I want to refer back to what I said on a point of order earlier this afternoon about the sums of money being made available for the dogs legislation, which passed through the House within the last year or so. It was a matter of great importance to farmers, as well as to others in Northern Ireland. Indeed, the instruments spawned by that legislation have now been laid, bringing certain parts of the legislation into force.
  In the documentation that I have obtained I cannot discover what sums were made available, and for what purposes, in connection with the dogs legislation. It is a matter of considerable interest to farmers and no doubt also to councils in the rural as well as the urban areas of Northern Ireland, where there is a different dog problem. I hope that when the Minister winds up the debate he will tell us exactly what the position is, what sums are being made available, and what progress has been made by councils in Northern Ireland in dealing with the problem. Certainly the legislation and the framework are there, but there does not seem to be much on the ground.
  498
  I want to say a word about agriculture in Northern Ireland. On 30 November of this year a long press notice was issued by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at Whitehall place, London. The same information was contained in a written answer in the House. It concerned the decrease in the moneys available for agricultural capital grant schemes in Northern Ireland. In this order a considerable amount of money is set out for various items of agriculture. As those sums were decided in the light of the changes that were made on 30 November, I wonder whether they now need to be revised.
  If grants are chopped off on 30 November, with four months of the financial year still to run, surely that chopping off must have an effect on the figures that are before us. If we are to discuss in any reasonable way the needs of agriculture and the provision that has been made for it, we surely need a statement today about the effect that the Minister of Agriculture's decision on 30 November will have on agriculture and on the sums that are being sought in this Appropriation Order.
  In a recent debate I referred to the drop in farming income in Northern Ireland. On that occasion I took the precaution of getting some figures from the Library. As it happened, there had been a change from the way in which the figures had been computed over the years. It was not until later that I obtained more accurate figures. I said on that occasion that farming income in 1983 would work out at about 64 per cent. in real terms of what it had been in 1973 in the United Kingdom as a whole, and I suspect that matters are rather worse in Northern Ireland. As it happened, the figures that I used then were flattering. According to more accurate assessments that I have made since then, in 1982, on an indexed figure, the real income of farmers was only 56 per cent. of what it was in 1973.
  In that period there was, of course, an enormous increase in the cash amounts that farmers handled. There were also enormous differences in costs for farmers, but at the end of the day their income was much less, with all the implications that that had for the agriculture machinery industry and everything to do with farming. As farming occupies such an important part of the Northern Ireland economy, providing itself directly and with the ancillary industries 13 or 14 per cent. of the employment, the effect is greater in Northern Ireland than it is in the United Kingdom.
  I maintain that many of the problems in farming arise from our membership of the Common Market, but no matter in which way we look at it, we are forced to the conclusion that the real incomes of farmers over the years have declined drastically. In the long run, that cannot be good for Northern Ireland.
  I am sure that we shall not get out of the difficulty by paying more and more money into intervention schemes, and so on. In my opinion, there should be a complete rethink. Of course we are glad to see what is before us this evening, but it is only because of the Government's lack of vision—and, for that matter, the lack of vision of the Opposition, who clearly have not thought through their own agricultural policy for the United Kingdom—that our agriculture is in the state that it is. I hope and pray that when we come back here next year, and the year after, conditions will be changed so that the real income of the agricultural community will start to increase again and get back to the levels that pertained 10 or 12 years ago.
  The next subject that I want to raise on the Appropriation Order relates to the announcement by the

  499
  Minister to the Assembly during the last week or so about funding and the carryover of funds granted to Northern Ireland. Hitherto, it has always been the practice in this country to claw back at the end of the financial year the sums that remain unspent. It is now, apparently, the intention for those sums to be carried over and spent in the ensuing financial year. This will have far-reaching implications for expenditure in the United Kingdom as a whole, because it will not be long—if there is any real benefit in it, which I doubt—before every other part of the United Kingdom and every other Government Department will start to look for similar benefits. If there is to be a real carryover, what effect will it have on the Supplementary Estimates, such as those before us, that are produced in the House every year? Will they be cut back, or what will the effect be?
  I wish to have a full and detailed explanation of the implications of such a decision, which on its face is so favourable to the economy of Northern Ireland. I do not take a gift horse without looking carefully into its mouth. Therefore, I wish to have the teeth of this horse laid out where we can plainly see them.
  Rev. William McCrea: But one does not kick the horse in the teeth.
  Mr. Ross: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is satisfied. If so, that is his affair.
  The questions that I am asking are an attempt to get to the truth of this matter, and they deserve an answer. We must know the truth before we can judge whether the decision which has been taken is beneficial. I have been a Member of Parliament much longer than the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea), who interrupted from a sedentary position. Therefore, I make the most careful inquiries whenever a gift horse is offered to me. My experience is that whenever one takes a gift horse apart, there is a heck of a lot of tissue paper and not much else inside.
  The Minister referred to the upping of the census figures. I believe that a census is held to gain an accurate count of people not only in Ulster but in the United Kingdom as a whole. The needs of the various communities can then be assessed accurately so that the House can grant the sums of money needed to assist them. When the census was held, an enumerator was murdered in a part of Londonderry which was then within my constituency. The murderer is still at large. Complaints have been made that the count, principally in that city but also in other places, was wrong and that the numbers were underestimated. It is now necessary to increase the assessment of the numbers of people resident in Londonderry and other places. The effect of an increase in the assessment, by what appear to me to be fairly arbitrary rules—if they be rules at all— is that extra money must be granted from the United Kingdom Government to those areas.
  Why should the Government accept that the count was wrong in one council area—I assume that the count was fair—and not accept that it was wrong elsewhere? This is not an insignificant matter. The Government, by accepting that fact, have undermined the validity of the entire census exercise. If a council can tell the Government that its figures are higher than the census showed and the Government accept that the census was inaccurate, what is to prevent every local authority, for financial reasons,
  500
  making similar allegations and obtaining the same treatment? If the figure can be upped for one council area every other area should have equal treatment.
  5.43 pm
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the Appropriation order and some of the Minister's general comments on it. Allowing for the fact that the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) is making his first appearance as Opposition spokesman in a Northern Ireland Appropriation order debate and that he has just returned from a visit to Northern Ireland, I wonder where he travelled? I realise that one can travel within Great Britain and see what one wishes. I believe that some people provide American visitors with Sinn Fein Cook's tours of Belfast to show the seriousness of the position.
  Other people who come to Northern Ireland and dwell amongst us for a time discover that economically and socially things are not nearly as bad as they were led to believe, and certainly not as one-sided as some people have sought to portray. I am not saying that the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West portrayed a one-sided attitude. He recognises the high level of unemployment throughout the United Kingdom and especially in Northern Ireland, about which I am not satisfied. Time and again, even in areas of high unemployment, however, I have realised the difficulty of getting people to work. People are not available for jobs. That must be put on the record.
  If the House is constantly regaled with arguments that social and economic theories may provide a solution to the problem of Northern Ireland, there is little likelihood of the House solving it.
  If we analyse the list of those apprehended and convicted by the courts, one would be amazed to discover how small a proportion of those who were involved were unemployed. If we are using socio-economic theories to read the situation, they must be upgraded. I do not suggest that adverse social conditions are not a contributing factor to the turmoil. The example of worker in the Health Service having an £8 take-home pay reminded me of the person who demanded to know to where her deductions went. The woman had accumulated debts. When it was pointed out to her that that was why the money was taken from her at source, she said, "If that is where it is going, I will leave my job and let the Government pay the debts"
  The House, above all others, should tell all citizens that the Government do not have a responsibility to pay their debts. We are saying loud and clear that people cannot believe that, just because Mr. or Mrs. X can get away with not meeting their lawful debts, so can everyone else. I have, unfortunately, discovered that to be a growing tendency among people who hitherto were numbered among the most industrious in our society. They say. "Why should we worry when the Government will bail us out?" I have constantly sought to lead such people in another direction. If we use socio-economic theories to explain the position, we are using a two-edged weapon, which could be counter-productive.
  I do not have before me the figures showing the state of the economy of the Irish Republic. However, Northern Ireland, as we were told today, has the highest retail prices in the United Kingdom. It is an amazing fact that one of our booming economies is in the border shops where people come from the blossoming Irish Republic to buy goods at the high retail prices in Northern Ireland. Some

  501
  figures are selective. I do not want anybody to misunderstand me. I am not saying that our price rates are correct in Northern Ireland, but, equally, I am not so sure that we can accept the blanket statement that our retail prices are the highest in the United Kingdom. The facts show otherwise.
  I should like to introduce some Ulster reality into the debate. I agreed with the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West when he spoke about the problem facing those who move out of outdated accommodation into renovated houses or into new houses in the public sector. Time and again they are caught in the poverty trap. One of my constituents had to leave a job in the Health Service because he could not afford to pay the rent for the new house that the state was providing. I urged him to be careful, and he has since regretted his decision. However, it confirms that there is pressure on some of those on low wages who immediately move into high-cost public sector housing. I want to put that on the record, because it should be recognised that there is a problem.
  I shall leave it to the Minister to tell us where the millions of pounds to which my hon. Friend the Member for Down, South referred, are that do not appear in the accounts. I hope that I can be assured that this is new money and that the other money that was voted earlier to the Housing Executive can go towards a roll-on programme to upgrade some of the programmes in Belfast and elsewhere. I shall not object if that is the content of the Minister's answer.
  I refer to the housing benefit scheme. Together with others, I greatly appreciated the response of the Minister and the department concerned to the representations made about publicity, and I welcome the improvement in the Government's publicity for the scheme. I also welcome the fact that when the scheme was introduced in Northern Ireland there was a softening of the blow that might be felt by some because of the tapering method. However, the reaction that I have experienced as a Member of Parliament leads me to think that the warnings given by some parts of the poverty lobby were not wrong. Some people are already finding it extremely difficult to find their way through the benefits.
  I welcome the use of computers in some offices and hope that it will spread to other offices. Many people have found that they were entitled to benefits that even the well intentioned benefit officer did not know were available to them, because the system is so complicated.
  An interesting fact came to light as a result of debates on that subject in Northern Ireland. There are those who want the money to be paid directly to the tenant. I understand that the money is being paid directly to those in the private sector. However, I have also heard that there are problems there. Under the new laws a person could draw benefit for six weeks without using it for the purpose for which it was given. He could be in arrears before any action was taken and so find himself in difficulties. There are people on certain levels of income who would find it very difficult to sort themselves out if they were six weeks in arrears with their rents.
  Those of us who argued that Government money that was to be spent on a specific purpose might be better paid directly to the person involved might have something on our side. I am told that if people want to manage their budgets they are entitled to do so. However, if money that
  502
  is given for a specific purpose is used for something other than that, it amounts to misappropriation, if not something worse. Thus we may have to save some people from the temptation of getting themselves further into debt than they might otherwise be.
  In class X there is an increase from £300 to £500 in the capital limit. I welcome that increase, but before anyone starts congratulating himself on doing a wonderful job I should point out that that £500 is often painstakingly saved by an old age pensioner towards the cost of burial. The sum is only enough to cover a fairly simple burial. Thus old people in particular are concerned about that. We have given them some safeguard, but they still do not have any leeway if an emergency should arise.
  Although we are debating an Appropriation Order, I should like to think that the Minister will use his influence with his colleagues in the social security departments so that a decision is reached quickly that will help those who most need a larger burial grant. The sum of £30 has been with us for far too long.
  I welcome the money that is being allocated to the attendance allowance as well as the fact that the number of beneficiaries has increased. Indeed, I also welcome the money that is being paid for mobility allowance. However, I regret that the mobility allowance is still dealt with rather mysteriously. People are turned down and then have to appeal. The appeal is granted for so long, and then it is back to the drawing board despite the fact that there has been no change in the circumstances. The person has to go through the trauma of being told that he is not entitled to it, and through the trauma of a tribunal. A caring department should have a little more heart. I could spend the evening citing case after case, involving, in particular, those who suffer illnesses that the able bodied do not experience. Because we do not suffer them, we seem unable, unfortunately, to understand the problems of those who do.
  I regret that the order says nothing about home helps. I recognise that it is a vexed question, and that because of trade unionism something that was a casual service to help those with specific problems has now grown into what has been called an administrative nightmare. We now have home helps who are entitled to holidays, with the subsequent problem of infill while they are not on duty. I recognise that there are scores of other problems.
  There is a subtle tendency for the Department to claw back in home help allowances the money used for attendance and mobility allowances. The Department may not have made that calculation, but that is what happens. Time and again, when we have drawn attention to the problems of those home help has been cut, the explanation has been that they get attendance and mobility allowances.
  I realise that there may be some social workers whose task it is to allocate, in the first instance, the hours to which people are entitled. I recognise that those social workers are human. Just as there are some chemists who dispense drugs like dolly mixtures, so there are some social workers who hand out hours without proper supervision. But the outcry throughout the Province is too great to be explained in that way. People are suffering because the hours worked by their home helps have been reduced. I could spend a long time relating instance after instance, but I shall merely ask the Minister to take the point on board and investigate what is really happening in the Department. Down from on high—thank God it is not the on High that I look to—comes the instruction, "You must save

  503
  money." That instruction is passed on to the area level, and those at lower levels have to save money by hook or by crook and they do not seem to be concerned about whom they punish. At times the situation has become intolerable.
  Some people in the social services do not realise what the guidelines are. I wonder whether the Minister's wife could clean even a few rooms in the time that the home help is allowed for her tasks. Hon. Members should study the guidelines allocating time for the tasks. They might then wonder, as I do, whether someone in the Department has been reading about Wonderman or Wonderwoman and has failed to realise that home helps are ordinary people trying to do a difficult task which has proved socially helpful to many. While we are debating the Appropriation Order, we should consider whether it would be appropriate to give that service more help.
  6.3 pm
  Mr. Roy Beggs: I support the draft order providing assistance for Northern Ireland, so far as it goes.
  I am conscious today that my young friend and colleague, Edgar Graham, who brilliantly chaired the Northern Ireland Assembly's committee on finance and personnel, was murdered only yesterday by terrorists. The Official Unionist party, and the people of Northern Ireland, could have benefited greatly from his skill and ability, had he been spared.
  In supporting the provision in Class I of an additional £208,000 for agricultural education and research and development, I note the level of assistance for the development of beef cattle production. Our farmers are producing a first-class product for the meat plants, but the Minister should urgently examine the need in Northern Ireland for skilled boners and, indeed, for the training of additional boners for the meat industry. The work is seasonal, but I understand that there have never been enough boners to satisfy requirements at peak periods at our meat plants. The meat plant operators have advertised extensively but are forced from time to time to employ boners from outside the United Kingdom, despite high unemployment in Northern Ireland.
  Additional funding should also be made available to enable more of our research veterinary officers to attend conferences and courses outside Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) has already mentioned the provision for dog control. The whole agriculture industry looks forward to effective dog control through the operation of the district councils.
  As the Minister has pointed out, the Local Enterprise Development Unit in Northern Ireland has been very successful in assisting job creation. Success breeds success. The LEDU has received an increasing number of inquiries from potential new business starts and from existing small businesses requiring guidance through a period of threatened closure caused by cash flow problems. Increased funding would, I hope, provide manpower to relieve pressure on staff arising from those extra applications by local people wishing to invest their redundancy money—people who have had no previous business management experience. Applications coming before the LEDU should be speedily dealt with, and there has been an improvement in that area.
  The increased allocation to capital expenditure for the LEDU reflects the growth and importance of small business enterprises and the growing need for capital
  504
  assistance in that area. The Minister pointed to the co-operation between the LEDU and promotion groups at local level. That deserves further encouragement. Where staff are available, regular clinics have been set tin at local level and that has proved advantageous.
  There appears to be substantial provision for Harland and Wolff, which is one of the largest employers in Northern Ireland. However, the figures could be misleading. There is no direct subsidy from which the Belfast shipyard alone benefits. Approximately 60 per cent. of the sales value of the end products of Harland and Wolff is spent on purchasing materials outside Northern Ireland, from the mainland. Recently, for example, £45 million to £48 million was spent on purchasing materials outside the gates of Harland and Wolff. Only £5 million of that was spent in Northern Ireland. Some £40 million to £43 million was spent on direct purchases from mainland manufacturers. Of all the materials used by Harland and Wolff, 95 per cent. are sourced in Great Britain. There is an indirect spin-off for other regions of the United Kingdom from the input into the Belfast shipyard of some £40 million.
  Mr. Butler: I take the point that the injection of money into Harland and Wolff benefits the economy of the United Kingdom as a whole, but is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that it should be possible to source more of Harland and Wolff's requirement in the Province? The answer to that would be of the greatest interest to all who wish the economy of the Province—let alone that of the United Kingdom—to be developed. Should it be possible to source more requirements locally?
  Mr. Beggs: I am happy at the level of sourcing taking place within Great Britain. There could be advantages, however, if more of the materials used in the Belfast shipyard were sourced in Northern Ireland. It should be possible for companies in Great Britain investing in Northern Ireland to take advantage of the opportunities that exist to supply some of that 95 per cent of the requirements of Belfast's shipyard. I hope that support will continue for Belfast's shipyard well into the future.
  I regret that I was unable to detect any special provision for Enterprise Ulster, which provides valuable job creation and training for the unemployed in Northern Ireland.
  With regard to Class II, Vote 3 energy conservation, I ask the Minister to consider making provision to enable quarry operators to qualify for grant aid under the energy conservation scheme. At present, I understand that it is not possible for them to obtain assistance to cover exposed large stone stocks used in the production of tarmac. I have some calculations that show that assistance would be justified and that energy savings would result. A great deal of energy is required to extract water out of the stone before processing.
  I welcome the increase of 1,500 in the number of beneficiaries who qualify for attendance allowance. I regret that married women, on whom the burden of invalid care falls heavily, are still excluded from benefiting under the present conditions of the invalid care allowance scheme. I hope that the House will soon remove that discrimination against married women. Has the Minister any plans for such a change in future?
  Reference has been made to the effect of the high cost of energy on domestic and industrial consumers in Northern Ireland. I hope that early consideration will be

  505
  given to the provision of extensive funding to change the dependence of electricity generation from oil to coal, thereby creating much-needed jobs for Scottish miners and helping all in Northern Ireland.
  6.13 pm
  Mr. Clive Soley: As usual, this has been a useful debate on the Northern Ireland economy, The one thing that we must never allow ourselves to forget —I have said this many times and I regret that I have to go on saying it—is that there is no evidence to suggest that the economy is emerging from the slump that it has been in since the Government took office. Every now and again it is put to us that a major recovery is under way, but the evidence suggests that we are just bumping along the bottom. Each time it bumps up we are told that there is a recovery and that things are better, but there is no evidence of that. I recognise, applaud and welcome the few positive signs that are available, and there are some.
  Let us not underestimate what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) said about the devastating effect of mass unemployment on a community as small as Northern Ireland where so many young people are without jobs. I reiterate a key point that he made. An unemployed young person who sees little prospect for his future in the economy or in politics is easy fodder for the paramilitaries, because they offer a degree of certainty and ideology for which to fight and to believe in. Paramilitary organisations, with all their uniforms, marching and grouping together, appeal easily to young people. That fact must always colour our remarks on the economy.
  It is interesting to note that during Question Time today the Minister could not deal adequately with the point about measures that had been introduced in Northern Ireland to stimulate the economy. If they are relevant there, why are they not relevant here? I did not pursue the matter at Question Time because one makes short contributions then, and I am sure the Minister was glad that I did not do so. The important point is that the Government recognise that in Northern Ireland there is a need for state intervention in the economy to bring it out of the slump.
  The Secretary of State has attracted around himself in Northern Ireland a group of Ministers who are widely regarded as "wet". I should be the first to endorse that interpretation. He has a small group of exiles who are prepared to use old-fashioned Tory methods to try to reflate the economy. Of course, they are doing so in the context of a Prime Minister who is dead set against any such activities. Therefore, the Secretary of State and his Ministers can only tinker with the problem
  The evidence—and I must emphasise that I regret saying this—is that employers are continuing to shed labour. I believe I am right in saying that unemployment in October was the highest on record. There is no evidence to suggest that new industries are developing. I wish to make some comments about the Local Enterprise Development Unit and the Goverment's policy towards it.
  Mr. Butler: I do not wish to enter into a long debate on the point that the hon. Gentleman has just made. I made my point at Question Time, although I did not have time to elaborate it. The hon. Gentleman rightly referred to the tempation for a young person without a job to become
  506
  involved in paramilitary activities. The youth training scheme is, by and large, proving extremely successful. We hope that this year again we shall attract about eight out of 10 of the qualifying group of 16-year-olds—first year school leavers—into the scheme, but that still leaves one in five who does not participate. Will the hon. Gentleman use his good offices—his right hon. Friend referred to this — to ask the Northern Ireland trades union movement to support the youth training scheme fully so that we can bring more people into it?
  Mr. Soley: We would love to do that in many ways, but the Minister must surely know that the problem for the trade unions, which I understand and respect, is that although the youth training scheme has potential, it is lacking in several key areas. There is a low rate of remuneration for those taking part and there is a lack of checks on the quality of training in certain areas. I accept that things are better in Northern Ireland than in the rest of the United Kingdom, but the fact that there are insufficient checks on health and safety also worry us.
  If the Minister moves on some of those key areas, particularly. remuneration, he might find the trade unions willing to discuss this scheme with him. They cannot reasonably be asked to do so while they see the scheme as a means of undercutting existing wage rates and lowering training and safety standards. That is the problem facing trade unionists on the mainland and in Northern Ireland. The Government will think that some of those fears are misplaced, and it may be that some are overstated, but on balance they are real and must be considered sympathetically.
  Mr. Butler: We may be moving away from the main subject of the debate. The factor which the hon. Gentleman describes as the "low rate of remuneration", and which I describe as the "training allowance", applies as much in Great Britain as in Northern Ireland. In Great Britain the trade unions have supported the youth training scheme, although they have expressed reservations similar to those put forward by the hon. Gentleman. In Northern Ireland the arrangements for operating the scheme are different, but there is a central organisation in which trade unions can take part and air their views and improve the scheme. That is what I wish to see. I do not wish to us the hon. Gentleman as an intermediary, but we should try to bring more young people into the scheme if we possibly can.
  Mr. Soley: It would be wrong to go too far down this road now, but my right hon. and learned Friend and I hope to discuss the matter again with the trade union movement —it has already cropped up in our discussions. Some trade union groups in Great Britain do not participate, for precisely the same reasons. As is often the case in a democracy, we must take people with us and remove their fears. Hon. Members sometimes forget that a worker with a relatively low earning capacity is dependent on a weekly wage and that his fear of losing his job is much greater than that of those who, over a longer period of time, have had a higher income from a professional occupation.
  However we dress it up, our attitude is affected by class. Class is sometimes dismissed as irrelevant, but it is very relevant, both politically and economically. I shall not expand the point beyond that, because quite rightly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you would rule me out of order if I did.

  507
  The Local Enterprise Development Unit has been doing extremely good work, and I welcome the additional funding available to it. The Government have been relying for the expansion of the economy on the growth of small businesses. In 1979 the Government expounded the philosophy that by cutting income tax and public expenditure money would be put back into private pockets, promptly invested in new industries throughout the country and that the economy would grow spontaneously. I always believed that theory to be the height of nonsense, and time has proved me right. There has been no evidence of that, and instead the money has been invested overseas. The turnround in Government policy has been to defend the investment policy.
  With regard to the work of the LEDU, it must be recognised—especially in Northern Ireland, although it is a general point—that the first three years are the most difficult for a new small industry. That is when it most needs flexible and innovative help. The evidence from bankruptcies in Great Britain and Northern Ireland is that that is the period during which most new companies go under, whether they are involved in new or in older technology. That is a constant problem.
  The additional funding of the LEDU would appear to be mainly for administrative costs. Will the Government consider expanding its work in other areas, perhaps to the investment bank which was mentioned earlier? Will the Minister ensure that companies are helped through the critical first three years? After three years one can begin to get an idea of whether a company will survive. The first three years are often poor guides — some companies survive while others do not—and it is difficult to predict the vulnerable companies.
  The Minister also mentioned housing. I recognise that since the Housing Executive was set up housing in Northern Ireland has improved dramatically. That is extremely important, and I shall not say anything against it. I have no objection to the right-to-buy concept where a local authority replaces those houses if it has a waiting list of people who wish to rent homes. I should be the first to acknowledge that one matter which the Labour party failed to get across to the public during the election campaign is that if there is a right to buy one's home, and the cost of buying it is lowered because of the large subsidies being given to the Government, those who wish to rent are pressurised into buying. We know that that happens, and since rents in Northern Ireland are relatively high, the difference between renting and buying is small, and at the end of the day people realise that house purchase is an investment.
  The concept would be fine if everyone wished to buy, but that is not so. Those who wish to rent should be able to do so, and they should not have to wait much longer for a transfer or for a decent house. Ideally, we should have a housing policy which provides equal opportunity to those in the public and in the private rented sectors. We do not have such a policy at present.
  I am still not satisfied with housing benefits. The Secretary of State, who is in exile in Northern Ireland and is running an alternative Government in competition with the Prime Minister— perhaps one might call him the gentleman in waiting — improved the housing benefit scheme in Northern Ireland. More money is available in Northern Ireland, and in some other respects it is better
  508
  than the scheme that operates on this side of the water. but it is still not a good scheme. We all know that the housing benefit system causes problems, which we cannot ignore.
  I should emphasise that there are real opportunities for giving more financial assistance to the growth areas of food processing and biotechnology. We should consider possible links, not just with the Government of the South — we must recognise that agriculture is the dominant industry in all of Ireland, and is another example of the way in which the border has distorted not only political but economic development in the island of Ireland — but with the universities. Such a link could be important for the Irish economy.
  Ireland has always been on the fringe of a major economy, in the sense that it has been on the fringe of the British economy, but it is now in a worse position because the major economy on which it depended—that of Great Britain—is collapsing. In the past four years especially our gross national product has decreased. The main market is now continental Europe, and the market has grown, especially in the northern European triangle of Germany, France and the northern Benelux countries. In those circumstances, a nation such as Ireland — North and South—is at a real disadvantage and can rely only on specialised products and mechanical development, or on products that are easily transportable to a large market, or on its domestic market.
  The Government have not considered that matter sufficiently. We should pay more attention to, and provide more money for, research and development in agriculture. I was worried when I saw what appears to be a cut in research and development provision in the order. However, I might be wrong about that, so it would be useful to have a breakdown of the figures. If I am right, we should be increasing it instead of decreasing it. This could be done, as I have described, by links with the universities and with the Department of Agriculture in the South. This would be a positive and innovative approach to the problems of the economy of Northern Ireland and also of Southern Ireland.
  Our agriculture lobby, heaven knows, is one of the strongest lobbies there is. It always amazes me that the Government are so much against subsidies to industry when they hand out the most enormous subsidies to agriculture and then knock on the door of Europe to ask for more. There is a double standard within the Government's economic policy. When we make our application to the EC we must remember that we are doing so on behalf of the agriculture industry throughout the island of Ireland. It is extremely important and an area to which we perhaps pay too little attention in these debates. It must be expanded, not just by traditional farming methods, but in the new offspring industries.
  Having made those comments, I shall gladly sit back and await the Minister's response.
  6.31 pm
  The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Chris Patten): The last time we debated an Appropriation Order in the House it was in less unhappy circumstances. The hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) referred to the murder yesterday of Edgar Graham. I should like to join him in offering my condolences to Mr. Graham's family. I offer my condolences, too, to his political colleagues and to his many friends in and beyond the ranks of the Official Unionist party. I refer in particular

  509
  to my hon. Friends the Members for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten) and for Hampshire, North-West (Mr. Mitchell), who preceded me in the Departments for which I have responsibility. I offer my condolences as well to all who placed their trust, confidence and hopes in that intelligent, thoughtful and brave young man.
  As is customarily the case, this debate, whatever the constitutional arguments that we occasionally have about the order itself, has given the House a reasonably wide-ranging opportunity to discuss the problems facing us in Northern Ireland. On these occasions the debate sometimes ranges even wider than the usually generously set bounds of the order, but I shall try, in responding to the debate, to confine my remarks within the limits that you would doubtless judge appropriate, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I shall, as usual, try to answer as many as possible of the questions raised, or at least to answer broadly similar questions. If I am not able to cover all the questions which were raised during the debate, I shall as usual write to the hon. Gentlemen concerned or ask my colleagues in the Departments covered by the Appropriation Order to do so.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) tonight made his maiden speech on Northern Ireland. As Sir Winston Churchill might have said, we welcome him to our deliberations. I do not think he will mind if we do not extend beyond that the normal courtesies due to a maiden speaker. One or two points made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman displayed a view of Northern Ireland not quite as well informed as his views will doubtless be within a short time.
  For example, the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to retail prices being higher in Northern Ireland than the rest of the United Kingdom. Some prices are higher. A number of hon. Gentlemen have referred to fuel prices. The House will know of the steps that we have attempted to take and have taken to deal with fuel poverty, but as for retail prices as a whole I am not sure where the right hon. and learned Gentleman got his information. As I recall, it is not borne out by any of the regional studies which are done from time to time or by the major study which was done by John Simpson and one of his colleagues from Queen's university, Belfast, a couple of years ago. Northern Ireland has enough serious problems without exaggerating them or claiming that some things are problems when they are not.
  Questions were raised about the economy and perhaps I may say one or two things in general before dealing with them. We all recognise that the appalling level of unemployment in Northern Ireland merits special measures, just as the Province's other severe problems of economic and social disadvantage justify a higher level of public expenditure than obtains on this side of the water. The figure which is customarily, and I think rightly, put forward for the difference is 30 to 40 per cent. per capita. When looking at those figures, I do not think that anyone could fairly argue that Northern Ireland's economic problems are the result, as I pointed out at Question Time, of inadequate public expenditure. When one considers the proportion of public expenditure taken up by capital projects as opposed to current expenditure in Northern Ireland, it is worth remembering that the proportion is about 16 per cent. as against 9 per cent. on this side of the water.
  510
  Our awareness of Northern Ireland's economic difficulties, caused by a number of factors, not least the rundown of some old industries, led to the major economic initiative announced by my right hon. Friend earlier this year. Its principal intention was to provide a stimulus to local industry and to sharpen the attractions of Northern Ireland for overseas firms. My hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Butler) mentioned some of the major elements of that initiative—for example, the abolition of rates on industrial property, a new advisory service to industry, an incentive scheme to help companies attract the quality of management needed for the development of their businesses and a new grant scheme to provide a relief of corporation tax on a selective basis for new job-creating projects. These steps have been taken and were widely welcomed by local industry as helping it to survive and develop.
  The Northern Ireland community recognises that it cannot rely on the Government alone. One of the more heartening developments of the year has been the growing evidence of the determination in Northern Ireland to tackle and overcome economic problems by concerted community action. I have seen that myself, for example, in much of the work that is going on to make the enterprise zones in Belfast and Londonderry a success. The Northern Ireland Partnership is another major example of this spirit. It is using the spirit of self-help to show potential overseas investors a different aspect of Northern Ireland from that which they see all too often on their television screens.
  However, overseas investment will not provide a panacea for the Northern Ireland economy. It must be balanced by a sound foundation of local enterprise. The last year has again seen the remarkable growth of small businesses, assisted in many cases, of course, by the Local Enterprise Development Unit. The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West and the hon. Member for Antrim, East referred to the Local Enterprise Development Unit which since its inception in 1971 has promoted over 16,500 jobs, including 2,550 within the last financial year. This is the highest number of jobs promoted in any year since the unit was set up. I regard this as a significant achievement which has been attained against an extremely difficult economic background. I am also pleased to say that the outlook for the current year is extremely encouraging and the number of jobs promoted is likely to exceed the record figures of last year. The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West asked particularly about job promotion. The job promotion to creation ratio of both industrial development agencies in Northern Ireland is about six to four.
  During the course of the last financial year the LEDU board formulated its strategy for the unit for the next three years. The strategy has recently been updated to take account of subsequent developments. The implementation of the strategic plan resulted in the introduction of new and improved measures of assistance, further enhancing the unit's scope for promoting jobs. New measures have been introduced by the unit during the course of the last financial year, including the enterprise grant scheme to cover new business and start-ups, the opening of the business centre in Belfast to offer facilities for trade promotion and the opening of the product ideas licensing library to assist those searching for product ideas. A new enterprise workshop has also been established to help individuals to develop and test new products. The overall aim of the implementation of the new strategy is to achieve

  511
  a job promotion target in excess of 3,000 in 1983–84 and beyon. LEDU will continue to keep the thrust of its strategy under review to ensure that it is appropriate and effective.
  The hon. Member for Antrim, East referred to the processing of applications from clients. I know that the unit is fully alive to the need to deal with and process applications in the minimum possible time, bearing in mind the need to ensure that the risk of case failures is kept to a minimum, as public funds are involved. LEDU has been making a number of attempts to improve its efficiency, and it is fully aware of the need to deal with applications as quickly as possible. Recommendations for improved administrative arrangements were made following a review in 1980 by a firm of independent consultants. The implementation of these recommendations has in recent years resulted in LEDU being able to handle an increased number of inquiries in a much shorter time, and as part of its future strategy the unit wants to continue to improve its efficiency.
  The hon. Member for Antrim, East also spoke about Harland and Wolff and, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State said, he did well to remind the House of the importance of Harland and Wolff not only to the regional economy of Northern Ireland but to the rest of the United Kingdom. The House knows that as a result of this order the Government will be supporting Harland and Wolff to the tune of £42·2 million in the current financial year, and that shows our concern that the company should succeed and prosper, becoming more competitive in a tight international market, under the excellent management of Mr. Parker.
  The hon. Member for Antrim, East raised another question, to which I am bound to confess, as confession is good for the soul, I do not know the answer, about quarry owners and the conservation of energy scheme. I shall take this point up after the debate, and my hon. Friend the Minister will write to him about this as soon as possible.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West spoke at some length, understandably, about housing. Some of his remarks were curiously ungenerous both to my predecessor the present Under-Secretary of State for Transport and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, because under their leadership the Government have given housing the priority that it has deserved for quite some time. We have some way to go in coping with Northern Ireland's housing problems, but in gross terms we have increased expenditure on housing in Northern Ireland since 1980–81 by over 50 per cent. and that is a considerable achievement.
  Sir John Biggs-Davison: Is my hon. Friend aware that the brief used by the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) was written for him by the Labour research department?
  Mr. Patten: It is not for me to speculate about research departments, even those that are not as respectable as the one with which I used to be involved.
  Mr. Archer: I have hesitated to interrupt, but I thought that I gave credit for the present position on housing. My comments were taken from the report of the Housing Executive. My brief, as it were, was taken from the Housing Executive's words.
  Mr. Patten: I am sure that the chairman and board of the Housing Executive would be the first to recognise that the targets that we set in 1981 for our housing strategy, both in terms of reducing waiting lists—which have fallen by 36 per cent.—and reducing housing unfitness, have been exceeded in less than the five-year period originally set. We are ahead of target and the Housing Executive would recognise that.
  My next point relates to what the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) and other hon. Members have said to me from time to time. We are considering with the Housing Executive how best to develop the housing strategy in Northern Ireland during the next few years, taking account of the appropriate balance. The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West also made a point about this, but I shall not take exception to what he said.
  The balance between new build and improvement and maintenance of the existing stock is important. I hope, following my right hon. Friend's statement about the allocation of resources within the Northern Ireland budget, to say how we shall be able to fund the reviewed housing strategy of the Housing Executive. We should be able to say something about that within the next week. The House can see that we are building — if I may use that expression, given the subject—on the foundations laid by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, who made a considerable contribution to public administration and property development in Northern Ireland.
  I assure the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West that I am not always as tetchy as this. He referred to the Health Service and the alleged cuts that the Government have made in the past few years, but it is difficult to reconcile what he said with the figures. Manpower in the health and personal social services has increased by 4,000 between 1980 and 1983, taking the figures from 45,000 to over 49,000. As for money, since the Government came into office, total resources devoted to the health and personal social services in the Province have risen from £392 million in 1979–80 to £647 million in the current financial year, which represents an increase of about 5 per cent. in real terms over the period. Therefore, we are doing 5 per cent. better now than the Labour Government of which the right hon. and learned Gentleman was such a distinguished member. I do not deny that there are considerable problems of management of Health Service resources in a decade that is not seeing the same exponential, or seemingly exponential, growth rate as was seen in the sixties and seventies. However, I point out to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that there have been no cuts in the Health Service in Northern Ireland following the Chancellor's July statement. At the same time, we have found more resources this year for the family practitioner services in Northern Ireland and more money for the dentists' and doctors' pay award in Northern Ireland.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman said, and he is right, that the regional strategic plan is posited on the assumption of extra resources made up to 0·5 per cent. of new money and 0·5 per cent. of efficiency savings ploughed back into the system. He said that the figure of 1 per cent. had to deal with 1·5 per cent. increased costs due to demography and technological development. In fact it is not 1·5 because the demographic figure in Northern Ireland is lower than the demographic figure in Great

  513
  Britain for all sorts of reasons to do with the age of the population. The demographic figure in Northern Ireland is 0·7 rather than slightly over 0·9. Adding the demography and technological factors together, one arrives at a figure of 1·2 per cent. and we are—at least, we were—talking about 1 per cent. in new resources.
  I notice, however, that in Great Britain the Secretary of State for Social Services has announced that he will be able to take account of the whole demographic factor over the next year. I very much hope that, when we are in a position to make announcements about Health Service provision in Northern Ireland, we too will be able to go as far as the Secretary of State for Social Services has gone. To go any further on those lines would presume on the statement that my right hon. Friend will be making shortly.
  The right hon. Member for Down, South referring to housing benefit, asked where the enhancements of the housing benefit scheme in Northern Ireland could be found in the Appropriation Order. The answer, I am pleased to tell him, is in Class X, Vote 2, Sub-head (g)(i). The Supplementary Estimate includes £300,000 to finance the enhancements we have been able to provide. This money has been made available from shortfall in other programmes. In all, the enhancements we are proposing will cost, as I recall, £500,000 over a couple of years, but in this Appropriation Order we are talking of only £300,000.
  A number of other references were made to housing benefit. Perhaps the House will allow me to make one or two remarks on this important subject. I need not remind the House of the reasons for reforming the schemes that provide assistance with housing costs for people on low incomes. We have been over these arguments on a number of occasions. The House had the opportunity of a full debate late one night last July on the housing benefit order. As I said during the debate on the order, I am grateful for the suggestions and recommendations for improving the Northern Ireland schemes that were put forward by the Assembly and by others. These resulted in some significant enhancements, in particular more generous transitional protection against paper losses and an extra £1 in the child's needs allowance from this November.
  On publicity—this is a point that the hon. Member for Belfast, South made on a number of occasions when the House was discussing housing benefit and has properly made since—all three bodies involved in implementing the reform schemes undertook comprehensive steps to publicise the new arrangements. Individual notifications were sent to existing beneficiaries explaining how they would be affected by the reform. There was a campaign throughout the Province and advertisements on local commercial radio and television in the six weeks preceding 21 November when the scheme came into operation.
  In addition, officials explained the new scheme to councillors. I endorse what the hon. Gentleman said about the work done by officials on the scheme. Officials also explained the scheme to voluntary bodies and members of the public in a series of 38 seminars throughout the Province. There was an extensive distribution of new leaflets on the reform scheme and a housing benefits guide. Finally, during the week commencing 21 November the Housing Executive ran a week-long promotional campaign at its Belfast housing centre.
  514
  I am glad to say that, thanks in part to the slightly later introduction of the reform scheme in Northern Ireland and also to the careful planning for its implementation, the new system has been operating successfully since 21 November without any major difficulties. No doubt there will be some teething troubles in the weeks ahead, but I have every confidence that they will be dealt with speedily and effectively.
  The main problem identified so far is the failure of claimants to return properly completed rent or claims forms with a consequent delay in determining entitlement in a few cases. Most of these little difficulties should be sorted out very soon.
  I am very much aware of the concern that has been expressed both inside and outside the House about the proposals to introduce certain changes in housing benefits that would have the effect of reducing the amounts payable. The implications for Northern Ireland of the proposed changes are still being considered and a statement on the outcome will be made as soon as possible. I cannot at this stage anticipate what that will be, but I assure hon. Members that all the relevant factors will be taken into account in reaching a decision. One of the most relevant factors is the fact that Northern Ireland has come six months later than Great Britain to the scheme.
  The hon. Member for Londonderry, East raised a number of issues. On the question of the net real income of farmers, he said that those incomes had fallen very sharply since 1973. The Government are aware of the importance of agriculture in the Province. The special aids we are presenting to the House are designed to meet precisely that point. I am bound to say that in selecting 1973 as his comparator the hon. Member selects a year that suits his argument because in 1973 farmers did well in income terms. It is not unusual in adducing arguments such as that to choose periods that most suit the propositions that one wishes to put forward. From time to time I have even done it myself.
  Mr. William Ross: Can the hon. Gentleman, then, tell me a year since 1973 in which the real income of farmers shows an increase? Will he also accept that I chose 1973 because that is the year when the United Kingdom went fully into the Common Market?
  Mr. Patten: I should like to be able to oblige the hon. Gentleman, but I am afraid that I shall have to refer the question to my noble Friend, who I am sure will wish to respond to the hon. Gentleman as rapidly as possible.
  When the hon. Member refers to capital grants and the effect in Northern Ireland of changes that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture announced on 30 November, I find it difficult, speaking as a layman in these matters, given that date, to see how it would have been possible to deal with it appropriately in this debate since the order the House is discussing was laid on 23 November. However, I shall draw the point to the attention of my noble Friend.
  The hon. Gentleman went on to talk about dogs. He was interested in the amount of money that had been made available to district councils to deal with dogs. I have to tell him that no money has yet been provided to councils. However, we are making some progress and some councils have started the process of appointing dog wardens.
  The hon. Gentleman also referred to end-of-year flexibility. In addition, he gave us the advantage of his

  515
  views on gift horses. There are quite a lot of these gift horses about because end-of-year flexibility applies already to all Departments throughout the United Kingdom. It applies to up to 5 per cent. of cash-limited capital expenditure. The carry forward from 1983–84 to 1984–85 will not be known until we know the 1983–84 outturn. But, whatever the amount, it will be reflected in the autumn Supplementary Estimates this time next year. The scheme will of course add to my right hon. Friend's flexibility in managing public expenditure.
  The hon. Member for Belfast, South referred to the death grant, mobility allowance and home helps. I appreciate his concern about the present level of death grant, a concern that he has expressed on other occasions. My right hon. and hon. Friends who are responsible for social security in Great Britain have been giving the matter close and earnest attention, and I shall bring his views to their notice.
  There is no connection between expenditure on home helps and expenditure on mobility allowance or other benefits; they come under separate programmes and a saving on one cannot be used to finance an increase in another. Reductions in home help hours arise not because of a reduction in the money available for the home help service — it has been increasing in real terms — but because some districts have found that their spending is exceeding the budget that is available, and, like the rest of us, they must live within their budgets.
  Overall, however, as I said today at Question Time, there has been a steady increase in home help provision. There was an increase of 91 per cent. in expenditure on the service between 1978–79 and 1982–83. The number of home helps expressed in whole time equivalent terms has increased modestly, from 3,167 in September 1980 to 3,453 in September 1983.
  We have set up a joint review team between the Department and boards to see how we can make the best use of the home help provision that is available. I am keen that that team should report as rapidly as possible. I appreciate the concern of a number of hon. Members about the subject and I assure them that I am aware of the substantial increase in the number of clients for the service. I am equally aware of the increase in the number of home helps, the increase in the number of hours worked per week, the increase in the amount of funds expended on the service and the number of home helps per 1,000 of the population over 65. That figure is 19·4 per 1,000 in Northern Ireland, which is about two and a half times the English figure.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Minister accept from me that, although in cash terms there may be no connection, people writing to hon. Members on the subject draw a connection and point out that people are in receipt of other benefits?
  Mr. Patten: I will look into any cases that the hon. Gentleman brings to my attention. What has sometimes confused the argument is the assumption that going beyond one's budget, even when it is an increased budget, and then being told that one should not do so is a savage
  516
  Government cut. It is not that at all; it is the difficult but important job of trying to manage Health Service resources as competently as possible.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: When the Minister considers the results of the review, will he bear in mind the special factor that where there has been a home help allocation to a household, even a household into which sums in respect of attendance allowance are being paid, that household settles into not just a routine but a degree of dependency which can be brutally interfered with if there is a sharp reduction in the hours of home help?
  Mr. Patten: I understand that, and it is a point which the review team will have to consider. A difficulty that we face is whether the resources should be spread as widely as possible, in which case they are spread rather thinly, or concentrated on cases of great need. But moving rapidly from a position in which one of those is being done to a position in which the other is done, whichever way round it is done, undoubtedly creates the sort of personal problems to which the right hon. Gentleman referred.
  I noted what the hon. Member for Antrim, East said about skilled boners. I shall have to draw the attention of my noble Friend to his remarks, as I shall with some of the other points to which I have referred.
  Mr. Butler: That is for me.
  Mr. Patten: I am corrected by my hon. Friend the Minister of State; it is a point for him and I am delighted that he will be dealing with it as rapidly as his intervention in my remarks suggests. If something can be done to increase the speed at which skilled men can be trained, that would obviously make a significant contribution to the meat processing industry. The House will be interested to know that this year Northern Ireland will export to the European Community and further abroad 45,000 tonnes of beef out of a United Kingdom total of 180,000 tonnes.
  The hon. Member for Antrim, East also referred to married women still being excluded from benefit under the invalid care allowance scheme. I understand his concern, but he will appreciate that many improvements could be made to social security schemes, some of which would be extremely expensive but none of which lies within my gift. I would hazard a guess that the change that he suggests would come into the expensive category, desirable though it may be. Nevertheless, I welcome the views of the hon. Gentleman and others on such matters and will bear them in mind when improvements are being considered at national level.
  I have answered most, if not all, of the questions that were raised in the debate. Those that I have not answered will be dealt with, as always, in correspondence later. I hope that I have said enough to commend the order to the House and that we can proceed on this occasion—unlike my first outing at the Dispatch Box—without dividing.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Appropriation (No. 3) (Northern Ireland) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 23rd November, be approved.

  Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions)
  7.8 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) (No. 2) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 24th November, be approved.
  I invite the House, at a sombre moment, to agree to the renewal of the provisions of the Emergency Provisions Act. I believe that the House would wish me to say something about the current security situation in Northern Ireland, as that will inevitably colour our debate and the judgment that we reach on the order.
  My hon. Friend the Minister of State expressed to the House yesterday the Government's horror at the murder of Edgar Graham, and I was able to voice my feelings during Question Time this afternoon. His death, coming so soon after the murders at Darkley, brings home to us all the needless suffering and waste that the terrorists inflict in Northern Ireland. It underlines, too, the callous hyperoisy of those who at one and the same time seek to take part in the democratic process and yet support the use of violence in the way that they do.
  I should like to make a personal comment on this matter. When I was recently in the United States, I found myself unknowingly having to take part not in a debate but in a meeting at Harvard at which Mr. Morrison was present. Just as I started, Mr. Morrison said that I had no right to speak for Northern Ireland and that only he had a right to do so because he was an elected representative and I was not. I made it perfectly plain to Mr. Morrison, as I do to all members of Provisional Sinn Fein, that if they expect to take part in democratic institutions they must use the ballot box and the power of persuasion to convince people of their cause. What they cannot and must not do is use the excuse of the ballot box and at the same time commit themselves to the use of violence and the Armalite rifle.
  I wish to get that point home firmly to those people. When they say that they represent their constituents and seek to deal with their constituents' problems they are, in fact, condemning their constituents to lives of destruction, fear and poverty. It is the very policies that they pursue that cause this poverty and fear, yet they go around trying to say that they are helping their constituents. This is complete hypcroisy and should be shown up and seen for what it is. They must choose whether they are committed to the gun or to the ballot box; they cannot have it both ways.
  In the past few weeks there have been a number of extremely serious incidents in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. James Molyneaux: I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman for intervening so early in his speech. To assist Government Departments and the right hon. Gentleman's junior Ministers—I am putting this in a constructive way—in drawing up the dividing line, the right hon. Gentleman has put the challenge that Sinn Fein must choose between the ballot box and the gun. Would it be possible to draw the line in such a way that Ministers and agents of the Government do not deal with Sinn Fein? I do not put that as a challenge to the right hon. Gentleman
  518
  tonight, but is he prepared to think about it and perhaps come to a decision and convey it to the House on a future occasion?
  Mr. Prior: Yes. It is a perfectly fair point for the right hon. Gentleman to make. I am thinking about it. I shall think about it very seriously indeed. I have always tried to bend over backwards to help those who are moving towards democracy, but, because of what we have experienced over the past few weeks, I think that the time has come to give this matter much deeper and further consideration, and that I intend to do.
  I return to the extremely serious incidents of the past few weeks. In addition to the deaths at Darkley and the assassination of Edgar Graham, there have been other killings, by terrorists from both sides of the community. There is undoubtedly and understandably a high degree of tension in the Province. A sense of insecurity has been engendered in the border area, where a number of recent attacks have been carried out, as well as in other parts of Northern Ireland.
  I want to leave the House in no doubt that the security forces are acting with firmness, determination, and the utmost professionalism to meet this situation. Our security policy is clear and resolute and I want it to be understood by all. It is to do everything that we can to put an end to terrorism: not to contain it, not to say that there is an acceptable level of violence, but to defeat terrorism and put an end to it. I make only one proviso—it is one which I must make to the House and one in which I believe passionately. We have to do it by means that are within the law. I must make that absolutely plain. I know of the temptations and of the concern that there is at times that perhaps the law fetters people from doing what they otherwise would do. I understand that, particularly at this time, but we must not fall into the trap of acting in any way which at any time would be against the law and the rule of law as we accept it in this House, and which we are proud to uphold in the whole of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Clive Soley: I am sorry to intervene, but I think that this is important. Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the aims of paramilitary groups is to force the democratic state to behave in a way that is outside the law and so plays into their hands?
  Mr. Prior: Of course, and I have absolutely no doubt that that is one of their main aims. Were we to fall in any way from the high standards that we have always set ourselves, we should certainly be giving them the greatest stick and achievement that they could have. I believe that our policy commands the support of the whole House and should command—I think that it does—the support of all the constitutional political parties in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): Does my right hon. Friend agree that what he has enunciated is extremely important and is worth reiterating? The implication is surely that henceforth and unequivocally the defeat of the Irish Republican Army and the Irish National Liberation Army is the top priority of Her Majesty's Government. That needs to be said and that objective must be maintained until it is secured.
  Mr. Prior: It has always been the top priority of the British Government, but I thought it absolutely essential that tonight, perhaps of all nights, I should spell it out in this particular form.

  519
  It is for the security forces to implement this policy. It is their job to take the necessary action to meet the present threat, and as the threat changes so does the deployment of the security forces. As hon. Members will know, it is not a simple matter. It does not admit of a simple easy answer. As the House may know, the GOC and Chief Constable are today again assessing, as they regularly do, the deployment throughout the Province of their forces, to ensure not just that they react but that they continue to act on the best available information about the threat which the peaceful community in Northern Ireland now faces, as it has faced in different ways for too many years.
  I saw the Chief Constable and the GOC last night and both assured me that, for the present, they had all the resources they required to take the action which they believe necessary. They know very well that if they require more they need not hesitate to come and ask me for it. I am certainly that they will.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I fail to understand how, on the one hand, the police go to a minister of a congregation and tell him that they can no longer keep the high profile that they have had on his place of worship in the previous two weeks because they lack the manpower, and, on the other, the right hon. Gentleman can tell the House that the police authorities are saying that they have the manpower and have everything that they require.
  Mr. Prior: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the Chief Constable has not asked me for additional manpower. One must accept that in the circumstances in Northern Ireland —and this is perfectly understandable—it is not possible to guard everything the whole time. We cannot do that. Therefore, we must deploy our resources in the best possible way.
  If the Chief Constable feels that he cannot do what he needs to do, he will come to me and the Police Authority to ask for additional resources. It is only in the past week or two that the regular police have come up to the new establishment. There are still a number of full-time reservists to be recruited to bring them up to the strength which I announced some time ago. If the Chief Constable believes that he requires further additions to the police force, he will come again and ask us. If he does so, I shall have the difficult task of seeking to persuade the Treasury to find the necessary money.
  On today of all days we need to be clear about the distinction between security policy and security operations. I do not think that hon. Members would expect me, or would think that it was right for me, to dictate security to the security forces and to lay down the operations which they should carry out. My task and my responsibility to the House is to set the policy, to do my best to defend it and to answer for it. Once I have done that, I must leave it to the professional chiefs to use their own judgment to the best of their ability in carrying out their work.
  The professional chiefs have my absolute confidence. Despite all our setbacks and all that goes wrong, I believe that we have in Northern Ireland the best anti-terrorist police force and Army in the western world. We need to recognise that more, and we need to understand the difficulties under which they operate, given the policy decisions that we lay down. We must recognise that they do an exceptional job.
  I wish to tell the House a little about what goes on. The professional chiefs have increased greatly the visibility of
  520
  their forces in border areas and in other parts of the Province, to provide more reassurance to the community. There is a difficult balance to keep. They know—this is the tenor of all their advice to me—that the best means of deterring, capturing and dealing with terrorists is the undercover operation. However, we know that in the light of events of the past few weeks there has to be an overt presence if there is to be the confidence which the local population needs. In the past few weeks senior commanders have been moved to take charge of operations in key border areas. More police and UDR reservists have been called upon and other necessarily unpublicised actions will continue to develop.
  There has been a threat in south Armagh for some while, and right hon. and hon. Members have drawn it to my attention. I took this up with the GOC at once. He told me that even before I had taken it up with him he had carried out 25 operations at company strength in south Armagh during the six weeks after 1 October. Those operations had been carried out in addition to the ordinary duties that were being performed. I do not believe that anyone knew that the 25 operations at company strength had been carried out or were being carried out. The operations were all carried out during the six weeks from 1 October to 14 November. It is important to realise that these things are going on even though we may not see them going on. I should not want anyone to believe that we are not making every possible effort.
  We criticise when things go wrong, but there have been many occasions in the past few months when attacks have been frustrated. There have been great successes, but they go pretty well unmentioned. I do not want it to be forgotten how many arrests have been made and how many attacks have been frustrated. By not recognising the successes we sometimes undermine the resolution and courage of our security forces. I am certain that no one in the House wishes to do that.
  Mr. Ken Maginnis: Will the right hon. Gentleman elaborate on the 25 company operations which took place in south Armagh? I am sure he recognises, as I do, that it is not possible in that part of Northern Ireland to deploy a company of regular soldiers once, let alone 25 times, without the people knowing what is going on. Covert operations at that strength are not possible. I know the people who live in the area. I know that they are dedicated terrorists, and I say that without wishing to accord them any aggrandisement. They will not allow company operations to be carried out 25 times in that area without some reaction. I do not believe that the operations were covert. I do not know what one means by a company operation. Is that a four-hour, eight-hour or 12-hour helicopter operation'? Is it a three-day operation or is it a seven-day operation? Operations that exceed 24 hours take a great deal of planning and expertise——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): Order. The hon. Gentleman's intervention is developing into a speech. I hope that he will be brief.
  Mr. Maginnis: I shall resume my place.
  Mr. Prior: I have already said that I do not interfere with the operations that are carried out by the GOC. He tells me when I ask him whether he is satisfied with the position in south Armagh. He says that while he is not

  521
  satisfied, he has done this, that or the other. I do not ask him whether helicopter operations continued for eight hours or 12 hours. When a general officer commanding troops in Northern Ireland tells me that he is carrying out these operations, I consider that he is doing what he considers to be best and right for those operations. Surely that is a reasonable point of view.
  I know that the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) takes these matters seriously and takes them to heart. Of course he has a right to question me about them. However, I hope he will realise that there are others who think that they have knowledge of the area which he represents and of how to conduct operations. He must not think that he is the only expert. I do not pretend to be an expert. I accept that the hon. Gentleman has special knowledge, but I hope he will take it from me that we are trying to make progress. I leave to the judgment of the GOC whether operations should be covert, or whether some should be overt and some covert. I am reporting on what happened in south Armagh during a period of six weeks.
  Mr. James Nicholson: I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman is aware that I represent the area under discussion. I could even be said to live in it. There are many who pontificate upon the area, and that perhaps exacerbates the troubles within it. If 25 company operations have taken place, I say to the Secretary of State that I have spoken to people who live in the border areas who have not seen a soldier for four months. Where were those soldiers?
  Mr. Prior: It is possible to carry out covert operations without the local population necessarily knowing that that is being done. I cannot go further than that. It is a good sign that many of those operations are carried out without people knowing about them. I do not think that that takes anything away from my point.
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Is it not clear that the IRA loses no opportunity to publicise what it does, even to the extent of using the funerals of its supporters for that purpose? The funerals of both IRA supporters who were recently killed were shown in ITN two days ago. In such conditions, is it wise for the security forces to feel that they do not need a higher profile as well?
  There has been a debate about policing, and we have heard the expression about getting the bobby on to the beat so that people can see the police. Why should we think that Northern Ireland is different? How can we resist the criticism of many people in Northern Ireland, who are worried that security is not being treated sufficiently seriously, if, according to my right hon. Friend's own statement, they are not aware that what he told the House today has happened.
  Mr. Prior: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. It is a question of trying to balance what is necessary for public reassurances, which is an important part of the matter, with what is best from the point of view of dealing with terrorism. We want to keep that balance. That is why I wanted to give as an illustration of the work that goes on the fact that those operations were carried out.
  Mr. Peter Robinson rose——
  Mr. Prior: I shall continue with a little more of my speech. I dare say that there will be another opportunity to give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Responsibility does not lie with the security forces alone. It is up to me, as the Secretary of State, the House and Northern Ireland politicians to give a political lead. The Northern Ireland community and the security forces are clear about where I stand. I shall not give way to terrorism, either by acceding to the political demands of the terrorists, which would undermine democracy not only in the United Kingdom but in the Republic of Ireland and beyond, or by sanctioning illegal and destructive behaviour in Northern Ireland, which would only cause the cancer of terrorism to spread still further.
  There is much that others can and must do in the battle against terrorism. We must not play into the terrorists' hands by taking action or making statements that escalate tension and terrorism, because that would make the security forces' job even more dangerous and difficult and encourage sectarianism and revenge.
  I understand and fully share the concern, anger and outrage about terrorism. The Government are dedicated and determined to bring it to an end. I shall take all the action necessary both in terms of providing support and resources to the security forces and on the political front to reduce the violence that has so afflicted Northern Ireland during the past four years and find, I hope, a way to make political progress.
  Mr. Peter Robinson: The right hon. Gentleman has slightly left my point. When he has meetings with the Chief Constable and the General Officer Commanding, surely, as someone who claims not to have their expertise, he would inquire about the fruits that they are receiving from their labours. What was gained from those 25 operations in the south Armagh area?
  Mr. Prior: The difficulty about that argument is that, regrettably, in waging a campaign against terrorism there will be many occasions when we do not actually "get" a terrorist. There will be many occasions when the police or military presence deters terrorists and when attacks are frustrated. We can look at the record of the RUC and the other security forces this year. As I said in the House this afternoon, more than 550 people were charged with terrorist offences this year, a large number of them for murder and attempted murder. We have been more successful, although not as successful as we would like, in bringing terrorists to charge and then to conviction.
  As the House knows—especially Northern Ireland Members—we have our ups and downs. Only a short while ago some people were saying that we were getting on top of the terrorist problem, but I never took that view, for the reasons that I have given. Nothing encourages a terrorist more than false hopes about the successes that one has had, but it is still possible to witness and believe the fruits of the efforts made by the security forces.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Before my right hon. Friend goes on to discuss the technical details of the order, I put a question to him, and he knows why I put it. No hon. Member could do anything other than give my right hon. Friend, the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Chief Constable the fullest support. Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the morale of the ranks of the Royal Ulster Constabulary? Why is it, after so long and patient a time of waiting, he still will not allow the representative

  523
  body of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the Northern Ireland Police Federation, which was set up by the House, to attend meetings of the Police Authority? Why has he not so far thought it right to have further outside inspection of the force's size, morale and equipment?
  Mr. Prior: I have taken a considerable interest in that subject. My hon. Friend knows that I have no power to direct the Police Authority on this matter. I can only ask the authority whether it will accede to this request. It has strong views on the subject. My hon. Friend knows that so far the Police Authority has felt unable to accede to the request. That was why I asked Lord Plowden, who was a member of the original commission that reported on this matter, to come to the Province to consult interested parties to see whether he could find a way forward. I am extremely grateful to him for his trouble. He was not able to see a way forward for the moment. With that in mind, we shall have further talks in the near future to ascertain whether we can make any change. I cannot force the Police Authority to do this. It has strong views, and there is a good deal of support behind the authority for its attitudes.
  I am grateful for what my hon. Friend said about the police force and for his support. I believe that the morale of the Royal Ulster Constabulary is very high. Not long ago I attended a passing-out parade of new recruits and was most impressed by their standards. Yesterday the GOC attended a passing-out parade, and he told me that he was equally impressed by the high standard and morale of the young men entering the service. Generally speaking, when I mention the RUC in any part of the United Kingdom, particularly in police circles, it is greeted with enormous respect for its courage and the quality of its professional approach.
  The emergency powers are, of course, exceptional. We must recognise, notwithstanding recent events, that such departures from the ordinary procedure of the law are not an end in themselves. They are one element, but only one, in our continuing effort to create the conditions for a long-term end to terrorist violence in the Province—in other words, for a return to the situation where those powers are no longer needed.
  For the present, however, we must ensure that the security forces have the powers that they need to carry out their duties effectively, just as they should also have the resources. Neither the Government nor the House have been timorous in that task, nor should we be. At the same time, I believe that the exceptional powers contained in the Act should remain only so long as they are strictly necessary. If we are to sustain confidence in the rule of law, it is imperative that there is confidence in the organs of government and the principles by which they operate.
  The House will know that I have established an independent review of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act, which is presently being conducted by Sir George Baker. I cannot commit him to any particular time scale, but I believe that he may be able to report in about two or three months' time. In those circumstances, I do not think that hon. Members will wish to examine either the detailed provisions of the Act or the strategy that it embodies. The Government will, of course, consider Sir George's recommendations extremely carefully. Naturally, there will be time for the House to debate the report and therefore the balance that the Act and Sir George's proposals strike. I should not, therefore, wish to propose to the House in advance of Sir George's report that
  524
  there should be any change in the provisions in force. Accordingly, I believe that the powers in the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act currently in force should be allowed to continue for a further six months by virtue of the draft order.
  Before I end, I should like to make some personal remarks. I recognise the anger and strong feelings of hon. Members, particularly at this time. I realise that they may well wish to say some pretty hard things about me, the Government and what we are seeking to do. Sometimes I can give out a bit of punishment myself as well as receive punishment from others. I bear no grudge against Northern Ireland Members, because I recognise that they have an enormous sense of duty and courage, which everyone in the House should recognise. It is a difficult job to be a Northern Ireland Member. I shall always defend that democracy, which enables hon. Members to express their views, however strongly put.
  I believe that the British people are steadfast and unmoved by terrorism. They expect me, whether this side of the Irish Channel or the other side, to work for peace in every way possible. Tonight I can only express my sorrow at the events of the past few weeks and my determination to do all that I can to bring peace to Northern Ireland. I urge the House to accept the order and to give a backing to all those who seek to help in what is undoubtedly one of the oldest and most difficult problems that this country faces.
  7.44 pm
  Mr. Clive Soley: It is just two years since I spoke for the Labour party on matters relating to Northern Ireland. It seems that every debate begins within too easy memory of another horror. After a while, words become inadequate. I can say nothing more than what was said by the Secretary of State. The whole House shares the horror at what has happened recently.
  I said in an intervention to the Secretary of State that terror poses a challenge to the democratic state. That is one of the reasons why we always need to look carefully at the powers that we take in what is rightly called the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act. It is a mistake to name just one or two of the organisations involved in paramilitary killing or in the political back-up to paramilitary activities. I know of organisations on both sides of the divide that are involved in killing and are within the law inasmuch as they are set up politically, yet they support killing.
  Whether we are talking about the Protestant Action Force, the Provisional IRA, INLA, Provisional Sinn Fein or some of the groups and individuals on the Unionist side that give overt and covert support to violence, we must be clear that we are condemning all of them. Otherwise, the message that is picked up in Northern Ireland is simply that the British condemn the paramilitaries on the Republican side but do not condemn those on the Unionist side. We must remember that only recently two motor cyclists rode up to some Catholics who were walking to get their dole, shot one of them dead and injured others. There are other such examples.
  Mr. Molyneaux: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Soley: I shall give way on this important point, but I do not intend to give way much because the Secretary of State took a considerable time. I do not complain about

  525
  that. He was absolutely right to give way as many times as he did. It would be less correct for me to do so. If I did so, I would take up too much time.
  Mr. Molyneaux: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have noticed that the murder at Newtownabbey of the chap drawing his unemployment benefit, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, was instantly condemned publicly by my hon. Friends the Members for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) and Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs).
  Mr. Soley: I did not claim for one moment that members of parties in the House have not condemned such killings. I have discussed the matter with members of the parties represented here. However, the right hon. Gentleman will know that in Northern Ireland legitimate groups have justified the violence. They did so recently. I could give the name of one organisation. I hope that Conservative Members will visit it. There are photographs round the walls of its party headquarters of its paramilitaries killed in action. I am not saying that members of the Democratic Unionist party and the Official Unionist party are not condemning the killings, because they are. I respect the right hon. Gentleman's intervention.
  However, if we are not clear in our condemnation of the political and paramilitary activity on both sides, the message to the people of Northern Ireland will be that the British care only about condemning the Republican side, not the Unionist paramilitary groups. Much of the killing since 1969 came from the Unionist side. That is why we must condemn them all.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: We do condemn them all.
  Mr. Soley: That is what I am asking for. I want to hear it loud and clear on both sides and at all times. Otherwise we shall do more damage to our cause than we need. Terror is a challenge to our democratic state. There is no doubt that the aim of the paramilitaries is to present themselves as the protectors of their communities—on both sides — and to undermine the legitimacy of the state. That is why we must always question and examine the need for Acts of Parliament.
  In 1981 the Labour party said that the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 needed to be reviewed. We welcome the review by Sir George Baker. I also welcome the statement by the Secretary of State that a debate will take place.
  The emergency powers legislation has been with us since the early 1970s, when it superseded the measure that introduced special powers. The emergency has lasted for 14 years — a long time. Why have we had such an emergency on our hands? We all know that the problem ultimately is political. The Government recognise that fact both explicitly and implicitly.
  The problem is as it has always been—that Britain is unsure how to respond. I well understand how successive Governments responded to what was a major crisis in Northern Ireland, which seemed to blow from side to side day by day. We thought that the best solution to the problem would be for the people of Northern Ireland to get together and work together and somehow solve the problem in that way. That is not enough. Britain must have a clear view of the position and make a statement. The British Government must decide what they want in
  526
  Northern Ireland. Do we want a united Ireland? Should Northern Ireland be integrated into the United Kingdom? Do we want an alternative status? Those are the only three options that can be considered.
  Before any hon. Member says, "Even to talk about this is to give in to the IRA," I say that there are many ways of giving in to terrorism. One of the best ways is to allow the terrorists to dictate the terms of the debate. I shall never do that; nor will any of my hon. Friends. A real need exists to debate the alternatives.
  Until we face the fact that Britain has not taken on board where it wants the borders to be positioned, we shall continue to duck the problem. The British Government are not giving a clear statement as to where they wish to have the border. Do the Government wish the border to remain in its present position? If so, we must say so.
  Perhaps we should follow the point made with infinite clarity by the Official Unionist party, that Northern Ireland should be treated as part of the United Kingdom. We all know that it has never been treated as part of the United Kingdom by the Labour party, the Conservative party or any other party. We have all treated it differently from the rest of the United Kingdom. Until we face that fact, I say with infinite sadness that the violence and discrimination will ebb and flow as it has done since the order was introduced.
  Meanwhile, we have our so-called emergency and temporary legislation. What happens? The emergency and temporary legislation puts down deep roots within the democratic state, our democratic forums and the body of our civil rights. It becomes a cancer—a parasite—in our society. Civil liberties are slowly eroded. Each time it happens, it is justified by a specific and horrific example. The result is immense danger to democracy.
  Some of the legislation finds its way into other legislation that we are considering. One need only look as far as the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill to realise that such legislation, which has previously been held to be satisfactory only within the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 and the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976 is now permissible. The Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, when enacted, will be permanent, and it will apply throughout the United Kingdom. I emphasise that the danger to democracy in Britain, Northern Ireland and Eire is immense.
  "Temporary" begins to mean "semi-permanent" and "emergency" also begins to mean "semi-permanent". Such Acts of Parliament alienate the community and undermine respect for law and order. I might even get the support of the Democratic Unionist party by saying that informers, or super-grasses as they are more generally called, have undermined respect for the law. That is what happens to both sides of the community. The emergency provisions legislation undermines the confidence of the minority community in British justice more than it does that of the majority community, although it dangerously affects it, too.
  That is why I believe that direct rule—however much I recognise that it is the best alternative in the short term —will in the long term undermine the position of both the Unionists and the republicans.
  I shall not ask the Government to respond in detail to the points that I am about to put—it would be wrong to do so, as Sir George Baker has yet to make his report and

  527
  the House has then to debate it—but they must be put on record, considered in Sir George Baker's report and dealt with by the House.
  About 90 per cent. of those arrested under the emergency provisions legislation during the period January to October 1980 were released without charge. That is an example of the way in which we can alienate those whom we are attempting to win over. The exercise of the legislation has become almost a way of life in some parts of the minority community in Northern Ireland, and I understand why. I also understand some of the problems underlying such an attitude. I must emphasise that we are losing the fight as long as that position continues. Most of the 90 per cent. who were arrested were fingerprinted and photographed. That fact gives substance to the argument that we are facing an erosion of our civil liberties. Prior to the fingerprinting or photographing of people, would we in the United Kingdom have accepted such a procedure into our legal system for people who were not to be charged or who were not to appear in court? Only the nature of the emergency that we are facing makes us tolerate such behaviour.
  Mr. Dermot Walsh has carried out some useful research in this sphere. One of his findings was that more than 70 per cent. of those released without charge were not questioned about their involvement in specific incidents. If that is correct, we must bear in mind what I have just said about the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976. We are involved in the collection of information. We would be acting in a more open and honest way if we said that such Acts were "Collection of Information Acts", because that is what they are. That is the reality of the position. We must not hide behind other words. The word "exclusion" means a form of internal exile, but it is given a different meaning to make it sound respectable.
  We must also understand that while the Acts are methods of gathering information, if careful checks are not made, they can become a form of intimidation.
  I do not suggest, and have never believed, that the powers can be swept away overnight. The House must challenge the Acts because of the length of time they have been on the statute book. We must also constantly question them in detail. Otherwise, they will become a permanent part of our law — a parasite on our society and democracy. Their roots will go very deep and it will take years to eliminate them.
  The Bennett report recommended that suspects should have the right to see a solicitor, and that the right should be respected prior to 48 hours elapsing. I hope that the House and Sir George Baker will consider that suggestion. Mr. Dermot Walsh found evidence that Bennett's recommendations were not always being followed.
  A confession in Britain is admissible in court only if the prosecution can prove that it was given voluntarily. Under section 8 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978, confessions are admissible unless the suspect can prove torture, inhuman or degrading treatment. That again is a major problem. Section 11, and probably sections 12 and 13 as well, could be thought to be in direct conflict with article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
  I think that Sir George Baker will be considering the case-hardening of judges who have to sit in Diplock courts. We all recognise that it must be incredibly difficult for any judge to undertake that task. However it is
  528
  important to look at the acquittal rates, because acquittal rates in contested cases—and my figures relate solely to them—show whether there is a problem in that regard.
  Sir John Biggs-Davison: In all fairness, will not the hon. Gentleman agree that as a result of the Bennett report and the action taken on it, suspects are, in some respects, more protected in Northern Ireland than they are in England?
  Mr. Soley: I recognise that the Bennett report gave several very important recommendations. However, I hope that the House will forgive me if I do not go into too much detail, as I am aware that many other hon. Members wish to speak. Much as I should like to expand on the problem, it would be wrong to do so.
  In 1973, 57 per cent. of those involved in contested cases in Diplock courts were acquitted. In 1976, the figure had fallen to 35 per cent., and in 1981 to 33 per cent. One possible explanation for that is that the judges may have become case-hardened. Acquittal rates in contested cases that are held before juries are quite different. In 1974, the acquittal rate was 38 per cent. In 1977, the figure was 61 per cent. and in 1979 it was 59 per cent.
  I do not draw any great conclusions from my next point, because I am not quite sure what to conclude. However, it is worthy of consideration. Of the cases that Dennot Walsh looked at in 1981, no Loyalists who pleaded not guilty were acquitted. However, 50 per cent. of Republicans were acquitted. That could imply several things. For example, it could imply that cases against Republicans were likely to be pursued more frequently than cases against Loyalists, or that judges were being harsher on the Loyalists. There are several possibilities. However, we must consider that point, as the figures must be telling us something. The difference is too great for it to be a matter of chance.
  The Labour party recognises—and it is in our policy document—that the security forces have a very difficult task. I do not in any way criticise them, because I recognise how difficult their task is. I should not like to do it. However, for all the reasons that I have given, and that have been mentioned by the Secretary of State and others, the onus on the democratic state is to ensure that minimum standards are maintained at all times. There have been no prosecutions of security forces personnel in connection with deaths from plastic baton rounds. That is worrying. Children aged between 11 and 13 years have been killed by plastic bullets which clearly, on the medical evidence available, had been fired from within the restricted area. That can only have an alienating effect on the minority community. I cannot sufficiently emphasise the importance of that.
  A relative of one of those children came to see me here. He quite openly said that he thought that the Unionists were fair-minded people but that he wanted justice done in his case. He did not understand why no action had followed a child being killed by a plastic baton round that was known to have been fired within the range limit set down in the guidelines. We must pay attention to that. If we do not, we shall lose the argument in the minority community. That is why I emphasise that I am not making an attack on the security forces. I recognise that their job is difficult, but we must ask them to do it to the highest possible standards. That is the only way to defeat the

  529
  paramilitaries. I wholeheartedly agree with the Secretary of State that we cannot do that by going outside the law, however tempting that may be from time to time.
  Similarly, coroner inquests sometimes trouble me. They are hamstrung by the inability to express an opinion on criminal or civil liability. There are often long delays before inquests are held on disputed killings. Sometimes those delays are due to an application by someone who seeks to present his case to the coroner himself. However, in other cases that is not so. Again, I must mention the danger of alienation, which is central to my argument.
  Rev. William McCrea: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's speech, and I have not heard one word about the innocent in Ulster. He has spent almost all of the time talking about alienation and the minority community. What about the alienation of the widows and the children who are left without their fathers simply because they had the Queen's uniform on their backs?
  Mr. Soley: The hon. Gentleman has not listened carefully to my speech. Perhaps he will read my remarks tomorrow. He will find that I associated myself with the remarks made by the Secretary of State about people being killed and that I remarked on having to comment frequently on that in the House. The hon. Gentleman will also see that the underlying thread of my argument is that we must defeat violence and the paramilitary groups. That is our aim. Given that, I should be failing to fulfil my task if I did not say how that should be done.
  It would be all too easy to make a speech condemning paramilitary activity and killings. However, the words in themselves would not stop anything. The tragedy is that such words cannot achieve that aim, however deeply we may feel. I took a growing interest in the problems of Northern Ireland, because I was horrified by the effect that they had on the people there, and on civil liberties. That is what drove me to take a deep interest in the matter. I would not be here if I did not have those feelings. Such feelings are not unique to the hon. Gentleman. We all experience them, but our task is to find a solution to the problems, and not simply to make statements which, however attractive and sympathetic will not change things.
  We must also consider descheduling offences. At the moment we obviously cannot return to jury trials. However, Dermot Walsh found that between January and March 1981, about 40 per cent. of cases involved ordinary offences. I do not have all the figures with me. I shall want to look at them more closely before drawing any conclusions. However, we need to be more flexible about descheduling offences. Perhaps more cases could be tried in ordinary courts. Perhaps we should say that all cases should be tried in ordinary courts unless the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Attorney-General decides otherwise. We should draw attention to the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, which has suggested that an immediate reform should be a reduction of penalties for certain scheduled offences, so that they can be dealt with in magistrates' courts.
  The commission points out that in 1982, about 47 per cent. of those convicted of the less serious offences were given non-custodial sentences. If so, perhaps we should normalise the law once more and stop the drift towards the Diplock courts. A return to jury trials is important, even
  530
  if difficult at present. If we are to deal with the problem properly, we may have to consider more carefully the question of using informers at non-jury trials. Perhaps we should make jury trials available for cases involving informers. The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) should agree with me about alienation, because the danger is that people will lose their respect for law and order. As that disrespect grows, it undermines the whole concept of the state.
  I have said elsewhere on a number of occasions—and I made the point in a question to the Secretary of State this afternoon — that an important and useful way forward would be to discuss with the Dublin Government the possibilities of an all-Ireland court and an all-Ireland police force. That is not simply a throwaway remark, and I am not thinking just in terms of the Labour party's policy of achieving a united Ireland by consent.
  Like many other hon. Members, I have always regarded the paper guarantee as worthless, in a sense—or not worth worrying about. We all prefer to be governed by consent, but we all know, as do the parties in the South, that 1 million people cannot be persuaded to live with another 4 million without consent.
  There is a strong case for making flexible, innovative and constitutional changes that do not force the Unionists into a united Ireland. The guarantee, as the Labour party understands it, is that the Unionists not only should not, but cannot, be forced into a united Ireland without their consent. However, the important corollary is that they must not have a veto on political developments. It is our task to show the people of Northern Ireland that the all-Ireland solution offers a better alternative, and that that solution can provide peace and prosperity for all.
  I sense a growing change in the political climate of the Conservative party. Some years ago the Conservative party would not have considered it, but there are now signs of a recognition of the need for an all-Ireland dimension. That is suggested by, among other things, the fact that the Official Unionist party and, perhaps to a lesser extent, the Democratic Unionist party suspect the Secretary of State of selling them out. I do not suspect the Secretary of State of selling them out. What I suspect—or what I think—is that current Tory policy is inevitably leaning towards a united Ireland. It does not follow that the Secretary of State is being dishonest.
  There is real scope now for political leadership from Britain, and that leadership could well be given in relation to the all-Ireland court.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman's concluding remarks, but would he briefly explain what he means by an all-Ireland police force? He knows that there is much support for cross-border policing, but that is a very different matter from taking the next step to an all-Ireland service.
  Mr. Soley: The hon. Gentleman has anticipated my conclusion. I have a little more to say. I do not want to spell out in great detail what I have in mind. One cannot reasonably do that before there have been full negotiations and discussions not only with Dublin but with the parties in the North. A number of Unionists in the North would welcome this move. I am thinking perhaps not about the parties represented here, but about ordinary members of the Unionist community. They know that in certain circumstances, and with changes to the institutions, their lives could be safer.

  531
  What we have in mind is a recognition that certain offences, both terrorist and non-terrorist, could be tried in an all-Ireland court. I have always talked about eventual federal solutions, and what we have in mind would not be dissimilar to a federal system. A number of options would be available. One could include only terrorist offences, for example, or all offences defined as serious. The court would be one way of getting back to the jury system somewhat more quickly. That is an important point to bear in mind.
  I have made no hard and fast decisions about an all-Ireland police force. It would be inappropriate to do so now. However, the time is ripe for exploring the two areas. There is the possibility of recruiting and training a force on both sides of the border in common training institutes set up on both sides of the border. The force would have a separate identity and would be able to operate in areas agreed by the British and Irish Governments.
  While moving towards that arrangement, we could usefully consider the exchange of personnel between the forces of both sides. One of the ideas that keeps some of the Republican paramilitary groups going is the belief that they are shooting occupying forces. Let us put them on the spot. Let us make it plain that we are thinking of an all-Ireland solution in certain areas. Let us make it plain that we recognise the fact that the Unionists cannot be forced into a united Ireland without their consent, but that we are determined to go ahead with flexible, innovative and constitutional changes which take into account the legitimate interests of both the dominant cultures in Northern Ireland.
  The Unionists cannot dominate the Republicans and the Republicans cannot dominate the Unionists, but they can kill each other. They can resist all progress. They can dig in and refuse to move. If the British Government do not take a lead, in conjunction with the Dublin Government, we shall be holding similar debates in 10, 20 or 30 years time. By then it will be too late to save the many lives that Government Members are as concerned about as we are. It will be too late to protect the body of our civil liberties, which will have been seriously eroded. That is the essence of our case.
  8.16 pm
  Rev. Ian Paisley: No Loyalists in Northern Ireland tonight will derive any comfort from the speech of the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley). We meet tonight under a dark shadow, and no one should think that it is the last shadow that will fall. Some hon. Members could well be making their last speech in this House. We from Northern Ireland know that only too well, In the Northern Ireland Assembly a few days ago, I said that there would be vacant benches, and so there are.
  The Assembly Member Edgar Graham, whose family are constituents of mine in Ballymena and who was himself a fellow townsman of mine, was brutally done to death by an IRA murder gang at Queen's university yesterday. He was a young man of brilliant academic performance, a young man with a good and strong political future, a young man who would probably have become a leader of the Official Unionist party. He was shot down in cold blood and then gloried over by those who did it. shortly afterwards, a book table was set up in the precincts of the university to sell the literature of the murderers. What is more, that university has had a repetition of deeds
  532
  of blood. There was an attempt upon the life of a noble Lord from this side of the water who came to deliver a lecture. The Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland was almost assassinated. There was an attempt upon the life of a police officer who was continuing his studies. Now Edgar Graham, an Assembly Member, has been done to death.
  There is a Member of this House who does not attend the House —the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Adams). We have been told tonight about alienation and reconciliation and trying to get together to solve Northern Ireland's problems. Recently the hon. Member for Belfast, West, who is now president of Sinn Fein, addressed a commemoration service at Kilmichael, in the Irish Republic. He spoke clearly and plainly.
  The Secretary of State, who spoke with strength and feeling tonight, told us that these people had to make a choice. They have already made their choice. What are we waiting for? What do they say?
  The hon. Member for Belfast, West said that Mr. Charles Armstrong was a legitimate target. He was the chairman of Armagh district council, a respected member of his community who served as a major in the Ulster Defence Regiment. An elected member of this House said that he was a legitimate target. He said that Mr. Armstrong was killed by "freedom fighters". "Freedom fighters'. put him to death.
  There will be no coming together of the people I represent and Mr. Adams. Let no one in the House suggest that there could be a reconciliation between a man with those principles and views and those whom I represent in the House. He talks about his willingness to kill:
  "In my role within the IRA and within an armed struggle, I would have no compunction at all."
  He felt that he was doing a good enough job. He was further asked whether he would welcome young people into the IRA and he said, "Of course." He would welcome young people into a murder gang. He said:
  "the people engaged in the IRA, whether men or women, are freedom fighters and the people who are commemorated today (at Kilmichael) were freedom fighters."
  The Secretary of State and his Ministers must make a decision. Is that the type of man who is to be welcomed to the table in the Stormont discussion room to discuss so-called constituency matters? How can Ministers sit down with a man who has declared that he encourages people to commit these acts of blood and violence?
  Mr. Soley: The point that I was trying to make is that, as I understand it, the deputy lord mayor of Belfast—if I am wrong perhaps I will be corrected—holds that post partly as a result of a vote by the Democratic Unionist party. He stated clearly that the red hand commandos in the Ulster Volunteer Force are necessary. He has photographs of the paramilitary all round his room.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: The man to whom the hon. Gentleman refers is not a member of the party that I lead nor is he a member of the parties represented on the Opposition Benches. If the deputy lord mayor of Belfast said what the hon. Member for Belfast, West has said, I would equally condemn him. and well he knows it.
  The hon. Member for Belfast, West has said, "Go on with your murder." How can one sit in the council chamber with a person who says, "You are legitimate targets"?
  The people of Northern Ireland are telling the Secretary of State that he must make the decision immediately to

  533
  outlaw Sinn Fein. I take the view that we should press for outlawing Sinn Fein now. That is the message I received from the people of Northern Ireland.
  How in the name of goodness can I return to my constituents and tell them, "Everything is all right. Do not worry. The Secretary of State has made a strong statement, and all is well."? In a few days another leader of Ulster society will be murdered. Another promising young man will be cut down.
  Those people are the enemies of democracy and of elected representatives, who are doing their job. They boycott the chambers to which they are elected, because they do not believe in the democratic process. They are in business to destroy the leadership of the two Unionist parties. I have told the police that there are six or seven cells of them at work and that five or six members of the Assembly have been appointed as targets. One of those targets was Edgar Graham. In Dublin on the night before poor Edgar Graham was murdered, those in Republican circles talked about his murder.
  It is no wonder that the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) said what he did in the House yesterday. The police have a serious responsibility in these matters and they must act. Opposition Members talked about the credibility of and reliance and confidence in the police. The people of Northern Ireland need to have confidence in the police. I have confidence in the rank and file of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and of the Ulster Defence Regiment, and I have always backed them. On previous occasions I have spoken in the Chamber when every hon. Member opposed me, and I would be failing in my duty if today I did not say that, across the board, there is no confidence in the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Let no one delude himself. The Police Federation was displeased with the Chief Constable. It met and proposed taking stronger measures. A vote was taken, and although it did not go against the Chief Constable, there was only one vote in it. Where are the men who dared to raise their voices against the Chief Constable now? They have been shifted by the man who does not believe in democracy in the police.
  Why does not the Police Authority admit the representatives of the federation? A former elder in my church was on the Police Authority. He told me that the Chief Constable said, "I cannot have men in the Police Authority who would tell me what to do. I would not tolerate that." But that is not the purpose of their representation. They should tell the Police Authority what the ordinary rank and file man is saying. That is democracy, and we need it in the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
  The Chief Constable does not have the confidence of the people or of the political leaders of Northern Ireland because we cannot speak to him. Never before has there been an inspector general or a chief constable who did not meet the elected representatives of the people. He has closed himself up in his ivory tower and has refused to meet us. How can he expect us to understand his policies when he will not explain what he is doing or grant us an interview? Today I received a letter from the Police Authority saying that in a month's time the Chief Constable may be prepared to meet the elected representatives of the people, but that he will meet them in the presence of the Police Authority. All questions must
  534
  be given in advance in writing. I must tell the House that in a month's time some people will not be around to put questions to the Chief Constable. We must see him now and tell him what the people of Northern Ireland think.
  No one should deny that there is a difference between the Chief Constable and the Commissioner in Dublin. There is no use in papering over that crack. We know what happened to the former commissioner in Dublin. Let it be said here clearly that the Chief Constable, by his actions, has forfeited the confidence of the political leaders of Northern Ireland. We heard tonight about the great morale of the RUC. I accept that the young men who put on the uniform and who go about their business have courage, resolve and dedication. I salute them, as should every right-thinking person. However, they have serious misgivings about what has happened. Moreover, the higher ranks of the RUC — including some assistant chief constables — have misgivings. If the Chief Constable does not have the full confidence of his men, how can this battle be fought effectively?
  No one in the House says that the RUC should operate outside the law. No hon. Member has ever advocated that, but we urge that every step must be taken within the law to defeat terrorism. There were strong words from the Secretary of State tonight, but the people of Northern Ireland do not wish to hear strong words. They want to see action on the ground. His words will be weighed against the action taken.
  It is no wonder that several Members on the Opposition Benches asked about south Armagh and the border. A deputation from my party visited the man in charge of the border—the deputy chief constable, Mr. Rogers—and two assistant chief constables, Mr. Crutchley and Mr. Cushley, and talked to them for three hours. They admitted that the border could be sealed, not by placing men along it but by closing the vital road intersections. That is how it was done in the past. Where do the bombs, bomb materials, guns and bullets come from? They come from the Republic. If we could stop the flow of weapons, we would get on top of the situation. But the border is wide open, and I invite hon. Members to visit it. A Member of the European Parliament who visited it said that there was more security on the border between his country and another friendly nation, than there was on the Irish border.
  The border may be crossed at any time of the day or night without challenge, which is why the Darkley killings were so easy. The House may not know that a woman who intended to go to the Darkley service that evening was stopped by the terrorists on the road and told not to go to the hall that night, but to go home. The terrorists control the area. I do not know where the security operations took place, but I know that on many parts of the border there is no security. The woman who buried her husband, Mrs. Brown, told me, "This is the first time for months that I have seen a police officer or a soldier here." It was a bit late for them to appear at her husband's funeral.
  The border is the source of the problem and must be dealt with. Terrorism will never be defeated until the border is sealed. It can be sealed; that is what the police officers said. We told them what we wanted and argued our case. We will go back, but what is the news from the border now? It is that manpower is not available and that the high profile around certain churches in the border area will have to be lowered. We put it to the police that we did not think the way to guard these churches was to have a police presence outside each one but that the approaches

  535
  and vital intersections should be guarded. This could be done with less manpower than putting a static guard outside each church door. That is how it must be done. However, we are told that after Christmas they will have to revert to what they had before. What does that mean? It means that the people in the border area feel that they are being abandoned.
  People are almost denied the right to defend themselves. I remember stating in the House that these people had an in alienable right to defend themselves and I was strongly criticised for saying so. I am glad that a former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), who is not in the House tonight, has changed his tune completely. What did he say the other day? He said that if he was in that area he would apply for a gun to defend his wife and family.
  What about the people who live along the border and who have applied for weapons but who have not been granted them by the RUC? They have no weapons to defend themselves if they are attacked. How do they feel tonight? It is all right for us sitting here in the quiet, comfort and security of this House, but what about the people along the border?
  The House should face up realistically to the facts. There is no such thing as reconciliation with Gerry Adams or the IRA. I have read about a plan that is to be put before the Dublin forum of two flags, two ideas of keeping Sunday, two oaths of allegiance, representatives coming here and going to Dublin, two police forces, two armies, two Governments and so on. The suggestion is joint sovereignty. It is absolute nonsense.
  The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) talked about a united police college and about people joining from the North and the South. Does he not realise that those people would be prime targets for the gunmen who would say, "Look what we have now. We are having an invasion from the North. The RUC, the dreaded, black RUC, are now walking our streets." This would be a recipe for the biggest blood bath that the emerald isle has ever had. Let us face up to reality. Unless the Government deal properly with terrorism there will be Armageddon. Let no one be fooled about it. I am amazed more and more by what happens.
  In regard to what the hon. Member for Belfast, South said about his friend, I know how he must have felt. The police were fed certain information about that young man being in danger. I and many people in Northern Ireland knew that Edgar Graham was in danger. I should have thought that police intelligence would have known that. According to the Newsletter this morning, his Member of Parliament went to the police and told them that. The young man got protection for one night. Then there is a statement from the police authorities that he did not ask for a bodyguard. Every hon. Member knows that nobody asks for a bodyguard. One cannot go to the police and ask for one. The Secretary of State made it clear today that Mr. Graham could not have asked for a bodyguard, and yet the police headquarters issued that statement. It is no wonder that the hon. Member for Belfast, South described it in the Newsletter as a half truth to cover a whole lie. Is it any wonder that there are people in Belfast who say tonight that Edgar Graham would have been alive if the police had protected him?
  There is one person sitting in this House, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William
  536
  McCrea), about whom I worry. He walks a knife edge. Why? Because his constituency could be won at a by-election by the Sinn Fein and it has its eyes on it. I worry about his protection, and I wonder whether the police really take any notice of it. That is what we worry about I wonder what I shall say to his widow when she asks me why certain things were not done. Hon. Members may smile, but we have to face the widows and we have to hear the children cry and ask, "Why did my daddy die?"
  I have a responsibility to say to the authorities and to Sir John Hermon—I know that he has no love for me or my party—that he has a duty to do as Chief Constable, and he should not take out his spite on members of my party who are public representatives. I could continue on that line, but I shall not pursue it. However, if my hon. Friend is murdered I shall say that I told the House about it and put it on the record.
  The murder gangs have got their first victim, and if something is not done they will get their sixth victim. What is it for? It is to destroy the Unionist leadership and to bring the country into anarchy, and when they have that they will have a field day. Mr. Adams has changed his tune, and has said that they are not now against the South and they do not want any problems there. He said that it is now the North that they want to take over. They used to want to bring down the Dublin Government as well, but now they are concentrating on the North. The House must face up to that.
  I understand the Secretary of State's position. He talks about giving out punishment. I have no harsh words for him or the Chief Constable, but both of them must go. I must be honest. I said that outside the House and I say it again now. They have failed the people of Northern Ireland. That is what my constituents say to me, and I would not be a man if I did not stand up and say it in the House. The Secretary of State knows that when I speak to him I speak bluntly and clearly, as he does to me, and rightly so. I can take punishment as well as anybody else in the House. I have a hide like a rhinoceros. That is why I tell the House that that is my constituents' view, and why I put it plain and clear that that is how the people of Northern Ireland feel.
  People have said to me, "But you are for the Assembly and Mr. Prior brought the Assembly into being." The security of my people is more important to me than any British Minister in the British or any other Cabinet. My people are the people of Northern Ireland.
  I ask the House to consider where in the United Kingdom there would be a chief constable who, in an hour of crisis, was not prepared to meet the Members of Parliament from his area. If any other chief constable had done that, what a row there would be in the House. Yet now we have the wheeling and dealing and the trying to make arrangements to meet. Some might say that we could have had a meeting, and point out that the Secretary of State wrote to me. We have heard a lot about the letter which was delivered to my house by hand. I replied immediately by hand. I got a reply to my reply only today, conveniently and purposely because this debate was to take place.
  To try to set up a meeting as the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland attempted to do was asking the leaders of the people of Northern Ireland to do something that they could not do, and I will tell the House why. If the leaders of the people of Northern Ireland are to meet the Secretary of State and the GOC and the Chief Constable, we must

  537
  meet as individual parties because our viewpoints are entirely diverse. The leader of the SDLP is in the House and he knows my view on the subject. His party, by a resolution in conference, does not support the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
  Mr. John Hume: That is not true.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: The hon. Member appeared in a television programme with the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) and me during the election. We asked him whether he would call on his people to join the RUC, and he said, "Definitely not." He knows that, while his party may say that it supports the RUC, it does not support the RUC as the police force of Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Hume: My party has made its position clear on many occasions. We fully and unequivocally support the security forces in Northern Ireland in impartially seeking out anybody who commits a crime. I suggest that that is a much more responsible position than the position of those who, when they are dissatisfied with the performance of the security forces, threaten to form their own forces or who, indeed, consort openly with the paramilitary on occasion when it suits them to overthrow the democratically elected system of government of Northern Ireland.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I hear that equivocation, that they will support the security forces when they impartially carry out the law.
  The resolution was passed and a prominent member of the hon. Member's party in north Belfast left his party over this very issue. But if the hon. Gentleman is to have a Damascus road experience and calls upon the SDLP supporters to join the RUC, nobody would welcome it more than I would, and he knows that. When he speaks, perhaps he will come a little further and say that he will join them and help them impartially to execute the law in Northern Ireland. That will be the day, and a happy day for the people of Northern Ireland and for those who support the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
  The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I would not—I have made it clear to him personally—sit down with him to talk about security when our views are entirely diverse. As he views the situation, as everybody knows, the only solution is a united Ireland. Ulster is a failed entity and there is no future except in a united Ireland. I believe the exact opposite. Between those two constitutional viewpoints there is no reconciliation. One cannot reconcile Republicanism with Unionism. He knows that, and I know it. That is why I cannot sit down with him in such a meeting.
  Why did the Secretary of State, if he was so keen for us to have such a meeting, not invite us individually? We are still waiting for that invitation. Now the situation has changed. I am prepared to sit down with the Secretary of State and the Chief Constable and the GOC at any time. I have no criticism to pass on the GOC because the Chief Constable has said that he gives the GOC his orders and the Army does exactly as he orders it to do. The man who gives the orders is the man who must bear responsibility for what is happening in Northern Ireland.
  As a party we have made submissions to Sir George Baker. I do not wish to speak at length on the content of
  538
  those submissions. I think that changes need to be made. I am in favour of jury trials. I am sorry that it is not possible to return to jury trials. They should not have been done away with. I made my views clear in the House when I voted on the question. I believe in the descheduling of certain crimes. Something should be done to get people into court more quickly to be tried for their offences.
  The other day a young man who had been accused of a crime and kept in prison for over a year was declared not guilty. What happened to his home, his work, his marriage and his family in the course of that year? The process of getting people into the courts needs to be speededup.
  I am not against informers. If a person turns Queen's evidence, well and good, but the rule that applies in the rest of the United Kingdom should apply in Northern Ireland. In the rest of the United Kingdom, when a person informs, he is tried in the courts and what he has done is kept in mind. But in our country a person who informs has two great incentives. "I will get out of gaol and I will have a comfortable life in future," he tells himself.
  These people are criminals. Indeed, they would be no good as informers if they were not deep-dyed criminals. The Chief Constable refers to them as converted terrorists. I do not. These men have the greatest of all motives—to get out—so they must tell a good story. What is more, they get out with money in their hands.
  Consider one case involving a supergrass. It was proved beyond a shadow of doubt that he was a perjurer and liar, but on his evidence alone men tonight are behind bars. That system will bring Northern Ireland into disrepute, not only throughout the United Kingdom but eventually in Strasbourg, and when the European Court considers it the chickens will come home to roost.
  We think of the old quasi-legal appendices to internment; a man stood behind a blanket and gave evidence against somebody who, he said, should be interned. It was nonsense. It was an insult to common decency and civil rights. I am totally opposed to murderers and criminals receiving large sums of money and a free life in Australia, New Zealand or elsewhere for putting people behind bars.
  A senior police officer was mentioned by one of these informers, but that policeman did not stand in the dock. The evidence that was to have put everybody else away was dropped in his case, for he was able to prove that it was a set-up and that he was not guilty. I have seen the affidavit that was sworn by the individual concerned. That is why I say that it is a dangerous practice. Let us revert to the practice that applies in the rest of the United Kingdom. Let there be no deviation.
  The Chief Constable says that that is the only way to win the war. That shows that his operations on the ground are suspect. If that is the only way to win the war against terrorism, the war will never be won. I look forward to a full debate when Sir George Baker reports, and there are other matters which my hon. Friends will no doubt bring to the attention of the House.
  There is a resolve among Northern Ireland people that the IRA or any other terrorist group shall not deter them from holding on to their heritage and keeping within the United Kingdom. I say that loud and clear. The hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) talked about not condemning paramilitaries. Protestant paramilitaries fired bullets into my home. If one looks up back numbers of the Belfast Telegraph, one can read how they said that they were out to get me. I condemn those who kill, no matter

  539
  what their religion, and I have often said that a Protestant who takes up a gun and commits murder is a disgrace to Protestantism and a disgrace to the Protestant ethos, and I repeat that.
  One cannot take away from people their inalienable right to defend themselves if the authorities of the Crown say, "We cannot defend you." Indeed, police officers have visited people in Northern Ireland and said just that. An Assembly man, a member of my party, had a gunman at his door but fortunately escaped that murder attempt. The other day policemen arrived at his home and said, "Watch yourself," and left him. What should that man do? He has only one thing left to him to do, which is to defend himself. That is not outside the law; that is his inalienable right. If that was happening in Britain, every hon. Member would be up on his feet saying, "Yes, he should be permitted in those circumstances to practise that inalienable right." That is all we are asking for. We are not asking to be allowed to go outside the law.
  8.55 pm
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I can offer some little reassurance to other hon. Members representing constituencies in Northern Ireland who have been told that they may not be here for the next debate, for I remember the same hon. Member, the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), standing in the same place last May and saying that I should not be here in this Parliament.
  Other of these biannual debates have taken place in years when much heavier casualities, numerically, were being inflicted in Northern Ireland by terrorism, but we all know that this is the most sombre debate yet in the series. It takes place under the impression of very recent events, but also of the accumulation and iteration of similar outrages over the weeks. It takes place therefore in an atmosphere, not only in this House, of bewilderment and frustration. In Northern Ireland the people whom we represent say, "We must have more security"; and those whom they send here to speak for them take up the words and say, "There must be more security." The Secretary of State, in all sincerity and with the most evident sense of his personal responsibility, stands at the Dispatch Box and reports to the House and then challenges us saying, "What more can I do?"
  Not just for myself, but for my right hon. and hon. Friends, I want to say that the cause of this tragedy, this continuing tragedy, of this bewilderment and this frustration, is twofold. It lies in a fundamental misinterpretation of the nature of terrorism in the Province —a misinterpretation which is much more common in Great Britain that it is in the Province itself—and in a fundamental error of policy on the part of Her Majesty's Government.
  The misinterpretation to which I refer is the common assumption — not common in Northern Ireland where people understand and see, but common in parlance and the media, and popular here in Great Britain — that, essentially, this is a civil conflict, an internecine conflict between people who cannot get on with one another, who cannot be reconciled to one another, who murder one another, that it is sectarian.
  That theory will not survive the most cursory examination of the scene in this year, 1983. There have been some murders which can be properly classified as sectarian—merely killing a man of another faith because
  540
  he is of another faith — but, overwhelmingly, the murders which have taken place, the outrages which have taken place, have not originated from within Northern Ireland. They are not the phenomenon of an irreconcilable community which is tearing itself apart.
  That was one of the most striking impressions which Darkley made even upon people here a fortnight ago. They saw whence came that fearful deed—from a mile away across the frontier. I remember that in the interchange which followed in the House there was reference to the Dundalk trail, the murder route which leads from the Republic into the heart of the Province. Even yesterday., when Graham was struck down, that presence, that factor, was not absent.
  In essence, terrorism is maintained and continues in Northern Ireland from a base in the adjacent Republic; it comes from across the frontier. That is its nature and its intractability. Its terror derives from that fact. It is in the face of that fact that the Government have pursued a radically misconceived policy towards the Irish Republic.
  The Secretary of State twice said that he would speak personally. May I speak personally across the Floor of the House to him? In no criticism of that policy that I make —which is of much longer duration than his occupation of his present office—do I cast any aspersion either upon his honour and sincerity or upon his deep sense of responsibility, something which no one in the House could possibly mistake.
  I shall explain how this misconceived policy arose and of what it consists, because the beginning of salvation is to analyse our danger. I am indebted to the former permanent secretary at the Northern Ireland Office, Sir Kenneth Stowe, for a most important indication of its nature. When I asked him—it must have been early in 1981—to account for the continual series of political intiatives in Northern Ireland, all of which were predictably flawed and predictably doomed to disappointment and collapse, and to say how it was possible not merely for Ministers to follow through such a series but to be advised that they could do so, he answered me—and it came like a flash of lightning—"It all stems from a meeting in October 1979. At that meeting were laid down the lines of everything which has followed since." The meeting to which he referred was the last of a series of meetings which began, or were initiated, immediately after the murder of Lord Mountbatten.
  I have in my hands a copy of The Guardian of 31 August 1979. One article began:
  "The Irish Prime Minister, Mr. … Lynch, will meet Mrs. Thatcher next week to review security policy in Ireland";
  but it continued that Mr. Lynch
  "hopes to broaden the agenda for the prime ministerial meeting to include the possibility of a British political initiative in Northern Ireland."
  When he was asked at a press conference whether he thought that a murder would postpone a British initiative—the report is on the same page—he replied:
  "I should imagine that, rather than postpone it, it may well be accelerated."
  It so happened—accidents happen, and I am content to believe that this was an accident — that the communiqué of the meeting on 5 October 1979, which was the culmination and crystallisation of what had flowed between the officials — and, no doubt, between the Ministers—of the two Governments from the time of Mountbatten's murder, was never placed in the Library nor published in full in the press. I am content to believe

  541
  that that was one of those accidents; but the communiqué was not available until last year, when the Prime Minister instructed that it be placed in the Library. Accompanying it, in the terms of the written answer, was her statement that it was the communiqué of a meeting held on 5 October
  "in the aftermath of the murder of Mountbatten."
  I must trouble the House with a sentence or two from the crucial and significant paragraph of that communiqué. It runs as follows:
  "The Ministers also discussed the prospects for political progress in Northern Ireland."
  Those who know the code language know the meaning of the term "political progress". The communiqué continues:
  "They noted that the Secretary of State"—
  that is, the predecessor of the present Secretary of State—
  "was engaged in continuing private talks with political leaders in Northern Ireland, and that in the light of these, the British Government hoped before long to be in a position to put forward positive proposals for political development."
  This sentence follows:
  "The Irish Ministers emphasised the importance of an early initiative leading to acceptable political institutions which both sections of the community in Northern Ireland could support and sustain."
  That then was the communiqué at the end of a series of meetings about security and what assistance could be expected from the Irish Republic in the context of security, following the horrific events of 27 August 1979—the murder not only of Mountbatten, but of 18 soldiers—committed either in or from the territory of the Republic.
  At that point began the sequence of political initiatives that have occupied the years in between. Those years were also punctuated by a series of outrages which did not bear the ordinary hallmark of the historic campaign of the IRA against the forces of the Crown, but which had a peculiarly personal and pointed significance — like the murder yesterday of Edgar Graham, which is the last in that series—and stand out like figures in the dark when we look back over those years.
  The Minister of State did not catch my drift yesterday when I asked him in a supplementary question what message that murder was intended to convey and to whom the message was addressed. I shall answer my question now. The message was addressed to Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, and it ran as follows: no turning back now, carry on. Again using the words of the communiqué, the message was to
  "emphasise the importance of an early initiative"—
  or, if the Government might not call it an "initiative", of carrying on along the route that had been laid down.
  Since 1979 we have been on a ratchet, whereby outrage has repeatedly been applied as an argument by the Irish Republic to the Government. The Irish Republic says, "Of course you need our co-operation, for the terror comes from our own territory. Well, here are the conditions on which you can have our co-operation."
  Mr. Hume: The right hon. Gentleman keeps on making the point that the terror comes from the Republic of Ireland. He has produced no evidence of that charge. All the evidence available suggests that 97 per cent. of those convicted of terrorist crimes in Northern Ireland come from Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Powell: That is not inconsistent with anything that I have said. Those who commit these deeds are, in the great majority of cases, people born in Ulster. That is
  542
  right, but it is in no way in conflict with the statement that these deeds would not and could not be committed if there were not in adjacent territory a base from which they could be committed.
  Mr. Hume: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Powell: By all means, but before the hon. Gentleman intervenes I should like to say how glad I am that he is in his rightful place in the House, where he can put questions and receive answers.
  Mr. Hume: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way again. Do not the figures of conviction suggest that there must also be substantial bases in Northern Ireland?
  Mr. Powell: I am willing to rest upon the phenomena of the outrages that will be present to the minds of the House, the outrages experienced in the past six or nine months, and ask how few of those outrages were practicable or had any meaning, apart from the possibility of transit with weapons and resources from the Republic into Northern Ireland.
  Another branch of the Dundalk trail passes through my constituency. The hon. Gentleman can say that those who actually fire the fatal shot live in certain places—I shall not name them; the hon. Gentleman knows them, as I do —nevertheless, it is the line of communication and the base from which the operation is nurtured.
  So for all these years we have been upon a ratchet. A continuation of violence has seemed to the Government to force them more irrevocably into the political stance that they have taken up. Until almost the most recent past the Prime Minister, with reference to her periodic meetings with her opposite numbers in the Republic, would appeal to us and say, "Do we not need the friendship of the Irish Republic?" I desire that we should be at peace with all other nations; but it is not only we who have been placed upon a ratchet in the past four years. The Government of the Irish Republic have also been placed upon that ratchet. The interlocking between the policy of Her Majesty's Government and the situation of the Irish Republic has imprisoned the Irish Republic and its Government in a similar nightmarish progression to our own. It is necessary to escape from it if we are ever to bring an end to the story that we are contemplating tonight.
  What we have to say to the Irish Republic, and the only words that will free it from its predicament, as well as ourselves, is, "Make no mistake. Nothing will alter the status of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom. Misunderstand nothing that we do. Misunderstand no word or action of ours. Understand that for this generation, for the next generation, for the foreseeable future, the United Kingdom will be as the United Kingdom is now. Do not therefore imagine that you are set upon a course that offers you political prizes to be secured for you—no doubt involuntarily and regrettably—by the repeated influence and impact of a terrorism based upon your territory. Understand only that that will get us both deeper into the darkness. The United Kingdom will not be broken, and the place of Ulster in the United Kingdom will not be broken. We shall henceforth do nothing that can even be misunderstood as expressing a desire on our part to cooperate in what is the political objective of the Irish state."
  That might seem to be a recommendation or a recipe for more conflict. There lies the misunderstanding. It is the only way in which the series can be broken, the only way

  543
  in which we can escape from the sickening iteration of blackmail which began with the death of Airey Neave—an hon. Member of the House. He is also in the series, and very clear was the effect of his murder upon the policies of the Government.
  We who sit here are duty bound to declare what we believe should be the policy that Her Majesty's Government should pursue. I have done so.
  9.16 pm
  Mr. A. Cecil Walker: I address the House at a time when everyone is especially aware of the scourge of terrorism which is afflicting our beleagured Province. The foul murder of my friend and colleague Edgar Graham yesterday clearly illustrates that fact. Several hon. Members have spoken about Edgar Graham. I support fully what has been said and offer condolences and sympathy to his family.
  The security aspect in my constituency has had a traumatic effect on my constituents. We have had our share of the troubles which have beset the Province in the past 14 years. As a result of the bombings, murders and numerous arson attempts my constituency has become the most deprived area in Northern Ireland.
  I have listened to the Secretary of State referring to an acceptable level of violence— [Interruption.] —I was referring to the context in which the right hon. Gentleman made the remark. I believe that Ulster is being asked to accept an acceptable level of violence as part of our daily existence. Would it be acceptable for the constituents of hon. Members to be brutally murdered while attending their religious Sunday service or blown to pieces while having a quiet drink with their friends or for young children to see their mother widowed by the bomb attached to their father's car?
  The house has recently discussed the effect of video nasties on our population. Although I agree that that is a worthwhile exercise in the protection of our young people, I respectfully say that Ulster has real life situations which make some of the contents of the video tapes seem tame by comparison.
  The right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon), who was the Labour Government's Northern Ireland Minister, was well respected for his dedication to the job. When we last debated this matter, he stressed that the achievement of peace in Northern Ireland involved not only the people of the province but those of Great Britain and the Irish Republic, but to be realistic in that belief necessitates full co-operation in order to defeat the efforts of those who are opposed to a peaceful solution of the problem.
  The Dublin Government are not subscribing all that they should in order to destroy the terrorist cells that undoubtedly exist in the 26 counties. In the 1956 to 1962 IRA campaign, the Dublin Government were very quick to act to intern all those suspected of terrorist activities and that, in conjunction with the general co-operation of the forces of law and order on both sides of the border, effectively isolated the majority of the population in Northern Ireland from the hideous acts of violence which were being planned for them. There is evidence—and I noticed it in the newspaper the other day — that the Garda in the Republic are now becoming concerned. However, I would point out that the fiasco of police officers losing their uniforms to Ireland's most wanted
  544
  terrorist gives scant confidence about their ability adequately to police their country, particularly in the border area.
  One of the issues that looms large over Northern Ireland is the commitment of Opposition parties to a united Ireland on the basis of consent. Time and again it has been shown at the ballot box that such consent will not be forthcoming. Such a policy feeds Loyalist fears and encourages those who would seek to hasten the objective by the bomb and the bullet.
  I pay tribute to the forces of law and order in the province. I have the greatest respect and admiration for our army, which performs an extremely difficult task in an extremely difficult situation. The RUC has now been restructured and, we hope, rejuvenated, and is trusted by everyone to do its job impartially. However, as the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) said, many of us in Northern Ireland are not happy about the Chief Constable and the role that he has played. There is a lot of dissension in the force's rank and file, as I think the hon. Gentleman pointed out. I am sure from what my constituents say that that dissension exists, and something should be done about it.
  I utterly condemn the recent criticism of our Ulster Defence Regiment, and wholeheartedly support its role in the Province. I see the recent irresponsible statements from pro-Republican elements as the beginning of a campaign to destroy a legitimate and deeply respected local defence force. No one can condone the actions of misguided people in any organisation, but that does not, by any stretch of the imagination, allow for a general condemnation of the total force. I hope that the House will recognise those accusations for what they are and whence they come.
  The thoughts of many of the members of the UDR were summed up recently. An officer was reported in one of our local newspapers as saying:
  "The Ulster contribution in almost every war that Great Britain has fought has been massive."
  He went on to say that if he and his colleagues could address the Prime Minister, they would tell her:
  "We have given our dead for safekeeping—they are not sleeping and never will they until you put right the many injustices and show the resolution we know you possess and you must also take decisive action to end the agonies of this battered Province."
  In making my first speech to the House I find myself, through the support of my constituents, in a new and completely different political sphere—a sphere in which I take great pride. I trust that during my time in the House I will do all that I can to uphold the dignity of this revered institution and to represent all the people of Belfast, North to the best of my ability.
  I am reading a very interesting book by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). It is giving me much advice on certain matters, and much pleasure, but one of the most enlightening things that I have read in it is that most Members of Parliament are just ordinary human beings like myself. That makes me feel much better. I am sure that I will eventually be able to adjust to my new life in the House of Commons.
  In view of the complexity of the many and varied problems that face the Province of Ulster, I am concerned about the fact that the Government have seemed to double up on some of the portfolios for which Ministers are responsible. I have the greatest admiration and respect for our new Ministers, who have shown a dedicated interest in their various Departments, and for the tremenclous

  545
  energy that they devote to their seemingly endless workload. Their enthusiasm should be acknowledged. However, concentrated effort applied continually can impair the most efficient people to the detriment of the cause that they espouse.
  I wish to pay a sincere compliment to my predecessor, John McQuade—Johnny McQuade, as he is known in north Belfast. He and I were both born and reared in north Belfast and we share the same concern for its problems. He confided to me a long time ago his ambition to be a Member of the Mother of Parliaments. I was his opponent in the election that brought him here, but I did not begrudge him that honour, and I wish him every health and happiness in his retirement from mainstream politics.
  9.28 pm
  Sir John Biggs-Davison: This is a sombre debate in which to make a maiden speech. I have the privilege of complimenting the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker) on acquitting himself so well tonight. The hon. Gentleman told us that he has lost a friend in Edgar Graham. Unionism, Ulster and the United Kingdom have lost a fine man who would have done great things for us all.
  As is right on these occasions, the hon. Gentleman referred to his predecessor. We, too, miss Johnny McQuade, who was a gallant soldier and a man of the people, in the best sense of those words.
  The hon. Gentleman spoke with fluency, clarity and a spice of humour. I still tremble when I rise to address the House, but the hon. Gentleman spoke with such assurance that I was surprised when he referred to entering a new sphere and embarking on a new life. He might have been here all his life. We shall listen to his counsel with interest at all times. The people of north Belfast are fortunate in their Member.
  I support the renewal of the emergency powers pending Sir George Baker's report. When the report is received and discussed in the House, we will examine the emergency powers with the greatest care to see in what way they should be changed, reduced or, it might be, added to in the interest of law and order and the liberty of the subject. Let no hon. Gentleman think that those of us on this side care less about the liberties of the subject and regret any less than they the inroads that have been made upon them as a result of terrorism.
  Even the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), despite his exchange with the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), will agree that the frontier is important in the defeat of terrorism and that co-operation from the Republic is vital. That was the burden of my question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State earlier today. There was one part of my question to which my right hon. Friend's reply was, I thought incomplete. That was when I said that there might have been a diminution in the co-operation between the security forces on the two sides of the border. I referred to the relations between the Garda Siochana and the Royal Ulster Constabulary. When I read press reports that the Baldonnel panels of superintendents from the two forces are being revived, does that suggest that there has been a lessening of co-operation, whether or not as a result of the McGovan affair which has thrown a certain shadow over the Royal Ulster Constabulary?
  546
  It would clear the air if the Minister would say something about that matter when he replies, because it is not healthy or happy that such reflections should be cast in this Chamber upon Sir John Hermon and that there should not be a proper reply. We want to know whether good relations now obtain between the Chief Constable and Mr. Wren, the Commissioner in Dublin, because it is important.
  I welcome the Secretary of State's assurance that the security forces will be given all the resources that they may need. It was not always so. I can remember the days when the police would compare some of their equipment unfavourably with that possessed by the Army. In recent years the equipment and the armament of which the Royal Ulster Constabulary was foolishly deprived by an earlier Labour Administration have been improved and restored.
  On a point of detail, I wonder whether I might refer to a question that I asked on 28 March? It involves the constituency of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis), although it was a different and less worthy Member who was then returned. I can only say that he was "returned" for that constituency. My question related to the training centre of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and other units at Enniskillen. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland replied on 28 March and said that a review of the facilities for training and operational purposes at Enniskillen was taking place and that any question about the accommodation of the force would have to wait until the review was complete. I wonder whether we shall receive that review before too long.
  I appreciate the tribute that my right hon. Friend paid to Northern Ireland Members. I understand the chagrin he felt when the Province's political leaders declined his unprecedented invitation to meet him, the General Officer Commanding, and the Chief Constable. I can also understand their objections to doing so. Unionists feel that it is difficult to discuss security with representatives of the SDLP, whose support for the security services has been equivocal, to say the least. It was interesting to hear the hon. Member for Foyle speak about that, and it was a welcome step forward, yet security is a matter for Ministers, who are responsible to the House. The Secretary of State thinks that it is wrong of the SDLP not to join the Assembly. Apart from the estimable Roman Catholics of the Alliance party of Northern Ireland it is, to adapt a phrase, a Protestant Assembly for a Protestant people, and that is one of its weaknesses.
  To leave aside the Assembly—I try to forget about it —I sincerely welcome the presence of the hon. Member for Foyle. The SDLP does not sit in the Assembly, but it sits in the House of Commons, where the nationalist view can be represented, and where Unionists and Nationalists can sit together and give their views on behalf of their constituents. In this sovereign Parliament—both Houses of it—partisan tension can be relaxed and causes of dissension, which loom large in the narrow heated space of a province that is the size of a large county, can be brought down to size.
  Mr. Martin Flannery: Is it not a fact that in this House there is a chance in an election for a minority to become a majority, but that in Northern Ireland, due to the tribal, communalist voting, it is impossible for the minority to become the majority? Is not

  547
  that the fundamental reason why the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) sits in this House but not in the Assembly?
  Sir John Biggs-Davison: When Ireland was partitioned, a Loyalist community—then substantial, since diminished— remained in what was then the Irish free state and is now the Irish Republic, but those people would have preferred to remain in the United Kingdom. They could not do so, and there was no prospect of them sharing power with those who supported independence from Britain. They had to and did make the best of it. Would that that had been the case with the minority in Northern Ireland.
  In Great Britain, there is no prospect for the Scottish or Welsh nationalists to share power. I understand the feelings of nationalists in Northern Ireland, but the will of the people of Northern Ireland is to remain part of the United Kingdom. That includes nearly every Protestant and something under half of the Roman Catholic population. Those are the figures quoted by various opinion polls. I understand how frustrating that is for the nationalists. What can we do about it? We must work as closely as we can with the Irish Republic and form the closest possible association with it, but on the basis of the enduring union, which is the democratic will of the people.
  I end by quoting the words of the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) from the Opposition Front Bench: "The policy of the Tory party … leads towards a united Ireland." When I heard those words, I thought that either my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, or the Under-Secretary of State, would leap to his feet to refute that assertion, but there was no reaction. Then I said to myself, "There will be a stern rebuttal when my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State replies to the debate." If it could be said seriously by any hon. Member that the policy of the Conservative party leans towards a united Ireland, those words would be music in the ears of the IRA and the INLA. [AN HON. MEMBER: "They are not true anyway."] They are not true, and it is an illusion of the terrorists that they can get their way. Until we convince them that they cannot get their way, and until they know beyond peradventure that Northern Ireland will be governed as any other part of this kingdom is governed, my right hon. Friend's sincere wish to win will not be fulfilled.
  Mr. Soley rose——
  Sir John Biggs-Davison: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State may wish to intervene before I sit down.
  Mr. Soley rose——
  Sir John Biggs-Davison: We must convince them—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] These are serious words. We must convince them, because it is a matter of life or death.
  Mr. Prior: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. If I rose to refute everything with which I disagreed in this debate, it would have become a little mixed up.
  Since my hon. Friend has raised this matter, may I say that the greatest thing that could happen for Northern Ireland would be for the Government of the Republic and nationalist traditions in Northern Ireland to recognise that Northern Ireland will remain part of the United Kingdom for—to use the words of the right hon. Member for
  548
  Down, South (Mr. Powell) — the foreseeable future. That guarantee could be given. At the same time, it would be open to all the people of Northern Ireland, and especially the nationalist community there, to seek arrangements which recognise their special position. That would be especially just in a society that has had a majority and a minority implanted into it for far too long. That is how I believe we shall make some progress.
  Several Hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I thought that the Secretary of State was intervening in the speech of the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison). Mr. John Hume.
  Sir John Biggs-Davison rose——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but I thought that the hon. Member for Epping Forest had only given way to the Secretary of State.
  Sir John Biggs-Davison: I had hoped that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would have prefaced his remarks with the words, "Before my hon. Friend sits down." I am sorry if I confused the House.
  9.43 pm
  Mr. John Hume: The subject of the debate is the renewal of the order under the Emergency Provisions Act, although it is not surprising that the atmosphere of recent weeks, especially yesterday, has dominated the debate so far. I join my colleagues from Northern Ireland and, I presume, all hon. Members, in condemning the brutal murder yesterday of the Official Unionist Assembly man Edgar Graham. As I said yesterday, it was not just an attack on Edgar Graham; it was an attack on the democratic process, and a direct attack on the Unionist people whom Mr. Graham represented. It was a clear, cold, calculated effort to stir up outright sectarian confrontation and to create chaos from which those same paramilitaries would emerge as the alleged protectors of their people. I extend my sympathy to Mr. Graham's colleagues in the Official Unionist party.
  People wonder why things like that happen in Northern Ireland—a place where both sections of the community are deeply committed to Christian religious beliefs. People wonder why in a small community of 1,500,000 people almost 2,500 have lost their lives in the past 14 years because of acts of violence committed by different paramilitary organisations. The victims have been drawn almost equally from both sections of our divided community.
  It is in answering the question as to why it happens that big divisions emerge between myself and the other hon. Members from Northern Ireland who have spoken in the debate. They will argue, as they have argued forcefully this evening, and as they have argued often in the House, that the problem is basically one of security to be solved by security methods. I question deeply that analysis.
  The rule of law in any democratic society must be based on political consensus within that society, particularly if it is a deeply divided society. That is true of Britain, of the Republic of Ireland and of most democratic countries anywhere in the world. It is the absence of that consensus that is the Achilles heel consistently exploited by violent and terrorist organisations. Only when that consensus is created will there be strong support for the institutions of a state that are required to defeat paramilitary violence. That is self-evident.

  549
  In 1973 a broad strategy to bring about that consensus was adopted by the Government here. It fell into broadly three areas — the criminalisation of paramilitary organisations, the Ulsterisation of the security forces and a major political effort to accommodate the two identities within Northern Ireland and to recognise for the first time the identity of the minority. That major political effort resulted in the Sunningdale agreement, which did not last very long. The only parts of the strategy which remain are those which refer to the criminalisation of the paramilitaries and the Ulsterisation of the security forces. A major part of the strategy is the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976.
  In paragraph 13 of the White Paper which was published last year the Government again stated that there must be
  "reasonable and appropriate arrangements to take account of the interests of the minority which are acceptable to both sides of the community."
  That seemed to be a reasonable statement, but let us examine the phrase
  "to take account of the interests of the minority which are acceptable to both sides of the community".
  It is to be presumed that if proposals are to be brought forward which will take account of the interests of the minority they will be acceptable to the minority, but they have to be acceptable to both sides of the community. Therefore, what is acceptable to or in the interests of the minority is subject to a veto of the Loyalist community in Northern Ireland. It is not enough for that community to have a veto on constitutional change; it must also have a veto on whatever form of government is set up for Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom. That means, and has meant, that every initiative taken by successive British Governments since 1973 has not succeeded, and that includes those of the present Secretary of State. As a result, the Government's role has been reduced to containing violence through the military, the police and the judicial system, to continue a political structure which on their own admission alienates a large section of the population.
  An essential instrument of that system containing violence is the order and the Act that we are discussing. I would argue that its provisions make nonsense of the Government's overall strategy. I shall quickly go through some of its elements. There are powers of arrest that do not demand the prerequisite of reasonable suspicion against the person arrested. The person arrested is not protected by any legally enforceable code of interrogation. Confessions are admissible as long as they are obtained by any means other than torture or inhumanely degrading treatment.
  Despite all this, only 12 per cent. of those arrested under the provisions have ever been brought to trial. Between 1977 and 1982, 22,378 such people were arrested under the provisions. If the same figures were available —they are not—for the rate of arrests for the whole period of the operation of the Act, we should be talking about 55,000 people who have been arrested in Northern Ireland under these provisions, of whom only 12 per cent. were charged. One must draw the conclusion that the legislation is being used for more than arresting people involved in violent crime. It is being used for intelligence gathering and harassment.
  550
  The figure of 55,000 people is equivalent to 1·5 million people being arrested in Britain, and if one combines that with an ethnic grouping in Britain or a particular section of the community, or particular urban geographical areas that are already deprived, one gets an impression of how the alienation process takes place, particularly when one confines it further within the population to those under 30 years of age.
  When the suspect is charged, if he is, he arrives in a court in which there is only one judge and no jury and he may face evidence from an accomplice that is uncorroborated. That accomplice will get immunity for serious crimes including murder, and will receive large sums of money to send him off to the sunshine in another country. I could go on, but I shall not.
  People wonder why there has been support at the ballot box for organisations involved in violence. I stress that the Government say that they are pursuing a policy of accommodating the two traditions in Northern Ireland to create a political consensus that must be the basis of order, and to prevent the alienation of the minority community. In fact, because of the veto that they gave to one section of the community in Northern Ireland, the Government are reduced to containing violence by means which themselves increase the political problem by increasing alienation.
  Two factors go to the heart of the deadlock in Northern Ireland which have always been there and which result directly from a decision taken in this Parliament many years ago. The two factors are the unwillingness of the Unionist community to agree to any changes that would give any role whatsoever to the minority community in Northern Ireland, described by myself among others as the intransigence of the Unionist community. The second factor is the lack of faith among a section of the minority in the democratic process as it applies to the British democratic process and support for violence. Those two factors feed upon one another all the time.
  Both those factors originate in the failure of this Parliament in the past to uphold the basis of the rule of law that is the sovereignty of this Parliament. This goes back as far as 1912. The decision of that Parliament in 1912 was to vote for home rule for Ireland, which was devolution within the United Kingdom—it was not independence for Ireland but devolution—and the Official Unionists of that day stood up and said, "We will fight rather than accept this democratic decision." That Parliament caved in to the blackmail and the rule of law has never since obtained in Ireland. The net result was to teach Unionists that if they threatened they would succeed. The message to the Nationalist community was that the democratic process, even when one wins, does not work and it is much better to use a gun. Those two attitudes go to the heart of the problem.
  Those attitudes were reinforced in 1974. Precisely the same thing happened in the House when an initiative was brought forward by the Conservative Government. It was hailed as a real means of accommodating the true Irish traditions, again reinforced and brought down by the same methods and again reinforcing the attitude of those who say, "Forget about your democratic process, it gets you nowhere in the end".
  We cannot survive those attitudes. It is clear that what is happening in our streets today means that we will not survive if the murder that is loose there is not brought under control and if we do not go to the heart of the

  551
  problem. It means that if any lesson is to be learnt from all that is going on, the lesson must be failure, failure of the attitudes represented by the right hon. and hon. Gentleman in the House in the Unionist tradition, failure in the attitudes represented by the tradition I represent, and failure in the attitudes represented by the Government. There has to be a re-examination of our traditional approaches if we are to get anywhere.
  What the Unionist community tell us is that they are the only means of protecting the Protestant ethos within Ireland. That is their position. They have always held that position throughout our history. I do not quarrel with the desire to keep and protect the distinctiveness of that tradition within Ireland because any country is richer for diversity. I quarrel with the method that has been used consistently, or sought to be used, which is to hold all power in their own hands, themselves alone—the other side of the coin, the exclusive use of power. That is a violent attitude in any democratic society.
  My own tradition that has had handed down to it a rather romantic notion of Irishness has confined its notion of Irishness to the Gaelic and Catholic strands of Irishness to the exclusion of the Protestant tradition. One extreme of that tradition thinks that it is right not only to die for it but to kill for it, that it is patriotic to spill blood. There has to be a complete re-examination of that attitude to show that we can create an Ireland that can accommodate both traditions and do it with the agreement of both traditions and create a new vision of Irish patriotism that is the spilling of sweat and not the spilling blood.
  For that to come about, let us not forget that the warring Irish who sit here and who are berated from time to time, perhaps justifiably, by Secretaries of State have no power at all. We exercise no executive power. All power resides in the Government here, and there needs to be a re-examination of attitudes here.
  How dare anybody, Prime Minister or otherwise, tell me that we are as British as Finchley and that we are an integral part of the United Kingdom when one of the gravest crises in any part of the United Kingdom is going on in this House and when debates on Northern Ireland in the House take place usually in the small hours of the night with very few hon. Members present?
  There is no commitment in that sort of attitude. Nor is there a commitment in a simplistic notion, restated by the Secretary of State, of what looks like a democratic guarantee to a section of the Northern Ireland population. Everyone knows that Northern Ireland was created on the basis of a religious head count, yet the majority is told, "Your majority is the basis of your protection." That is forcing that majority into sectarian solidarity, and any group of people in the same situation would do the same. That sectarian solidarity prevents the dialogue that the Secretary of State and we all desperately need if we are to solve our problem.
  The end result cannot be victory for any section of the people of Ireland. Victory is not a solution. The end result must be an accommodation, but that can be obtained only if we all commit ourselves to saying, "Let us begin the exercise and agree before we start that what we are seeking is agreement, not victory."
  10.1 pm
  Mr. Peter Robinson: Before coming to the subject matter of the debate I wish to congratulate the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker) on a fine
  552
  maiden speech. Like the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison), I noticed the confidence with which he spoke. Perhaps Belfast city council is a good training ground. It was the training ground of his predecessor, and I thank him on behalf of my hon. Friends for the kind remarks that he made about Johnnie McQuade, the warrior from Belfast, North who was a colourful character both inside and outside the House.
  I will not be deflected from the main purpose of the debate by answering the substance of the argument adduced by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume). Suffice it to say that he refuses to accept reality. The reality in Northern Ireland is that the vast majority of the pople there wish to remain part of the United Kingdom. He cannot talk that reality out of existence. It is there and he will have to accept it.
  The hon. Member for Foyle turns the pages of history and when he reaches the early part of this century he tells us that there was a head count which, on a religious basis, set up the state of Northern Ireland. The people of his and my tradition in those days accepted the boundaries of that state, and those then in this House voted in favour of those boundaries, as did those of his tradition in the Dail in Dublin and those of my tradition in the first Stormont Parliament. It was agreed by all of those parties, and in the League of Nations, the forerunner of the United Nations, a solemn document was signed agreeing to those boundaries. But the hon. Member for Foyle wants to throw away the pages of history and not accept the reality that Northern Ireland is British and that therefore the vast majority of its people should, by any democratic process, have their way.
  The hon. Member for Foyle may not like that situation, but it is a reality, however unpalatable it may be to him. Until he accepts it — and until those of his tradition accept it—the rest of us, the vast majority, will not be able to sleep in our beds at night in safety. It is a sad fact that there are those of his tradition who are prepared to spill blood, and he said that.
  I wish to make it clear that the ritual that we go through in the House every six months of renewing this measure is an indictment of the Government. The very fact that we must renew it is a signal that they have failed. The House does well to remind itself of the statistics of violence in Northern Ireland, up to midnight last night—none of us knows what is happening in the Province now — the number of people killed there included 124 members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, 67 members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve, 371 members of the British Army and 136 members of the Ulster Defence Regiment, as well as 1,642 civilians, making a total of 2,340. As well as those deaths, the number of injured were: 4,572 members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary; 3,896 members of the Army and the Ulster Defence Regiment; and 17,564 civilians; giving a total of 26,032 people.
  If those statistics do not make an imprint on the minds of hon. Members, let me put them into perspective in United Kingdom terms so that they might know the impact of those deaths and injuries on the people of Northern Ireland. On the basis that there are almost 1·5 million people in Northern Ireland and on the basis that there are almost 56 million people in the United Kingdom, by United Kingdom standards, on the same proportion and on the same ratio of deaths and injuries in Northern Ireland, 87,000 people would have been murdered in the campaign of violence and 1 million people would have been maimed

  553
  and mutilated. If that campaign had been taking place in the whole of the United Kingdom, I wonder whether right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House would be looking over their shoulders with concern when Northern Ireland Members raised their voices and appeared to be emotional on the issues which affect their constituents. I would imagine that from every corner of the House there would be a demand for the head of the Secretary of State whose policy had failed to the extent that the Secretary of State's policy on security has failed.
  Those are the statistics, but statistics are in many ways meaningless. The Secretary of State has told us over the past few months that there has been an improvement in security, that the statistics for this year are slightly better than the statistics for 1982. Perhaps he did not make his judgment from what has been taking place in the past few days, for the facts do not bear that out. My statistics, from the Royal Ulster Constabulary, show that the number of RUC men killed is up on 1982; that the number of RUC reservists killed is up on 1982; that the number of Army deaths, granted, is down— it is down to five in the present year—but that the number of UDR deaths has increased this year; and the number of civilian deaths, should the present trend continue, will probably end up the same as in the past year. If the statistics over the past few weeks were to continue for the whole of the month of December—the highest number of killings in Northern Ireland in 1982 took place in December—we would have the worst statistics for violence in Northern Ireland since 1976—hardly anything to be patting ourselves on the back about and hardly an indicator that things in Northern Ireland are getting better.
  I join right hon. and hon. Members who have paid tribute to the work that was carried out by the late Edgar Graham. I watched him closely in the Northern Ireland Assembly and I think that anyone who watched his performances in the Northern Ireland Assembly could see the ability of that young man. I express my sympathy to his family circle and to his colleagues who have lost a promising politician.
  The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), who, unfortunately, is not in the Chamber at present, posed for the second time a question that he asked to the Minister of State yesterday following the statement in which the Minister of State announced to the House the murder of Edgar Graham. The right hon. Gentleman said:
  "May I also ask the Government what message they believe that those who ordered the murder intended to transmit and to whom that message was addressed?" — [Official Report, 7 December 1983; Vol. 50, c. 340.]
  The right hon. Gentleman sought to answer his own question. He produced a complex argument in developing what he thought the message was that the murderers were intending to transmit. He alleged that the Minister of State did not follow his drift when he put his question to him yesterday.
  I listened to the right hon. Gentleman especially carefully today so that I would not lose his argument. I can go along with a great deal of the right hon. Gentleman's complex argument, but I am not convinced that the man who pulled the trigger, or the men who sent him out, had that complex argument at the back of their minds. I think that the message that they wished to transmit and those to whom they wished to transmit it is much more clearly
  554
  understood than the right hon. Gentleman's argument. The message was aimed clearly at the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues and it was simple. It ran as follows: "You have come out of the Northern Ireland Assembly on the basis of security and we shall ensure that you cannot go back." That was the IRA's message.
  Mr. William Ross: Does not the hon. Gentleman yet understand that neither my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) nor anyone else on the Unionist Bench has ever alleged that the man who pulls the trigger has to know the complex reasons behind his pulling of the trigger.
  Mr. Robinson: The hon. Gentleman is confused.
  Mr. Ross: No, I am not confused.
  Mr. Robinson: I talked of the man who pulled the trigger and of the man or men who sent him out. Inasmuch as any of those who carry out the violence or those who send them out know why they commit such acts, other than hatred and a wish to put down Loyalists and those who stand for the British connection, it is clear that an organisation which went to the Assembly to smash Stormont can ascertain that its goal can be attained by murder. It is surely clear to the hon. Gentleman that it can attain its goal and have success through such murders. That is more clearly the message than the complex argument advanced by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell).
  Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): Is the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) suggesting or implying that the Provisional IRA, or perhaps the INLA, having sought in 1971 to bomb and shoot the Unionist party out of Stormont, is now, at the end of 1983, trying to shoot the Official Unionist party into the Assembly?
  Mr. Robinson: The Irish Republican Army and its fellow travellers in the INLA are the enemies of democracy. They want to pull down every democratic institution that stands between them and their goal. That is clearly their aim. They stated in their election manifestos that their intention was to smash Stormont. Immediately the election was concluded, the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Adams) who does not come to the House—he is the leader of the Provisional Sinn Fein movement and I can hardly bring myself to call him an "honourable" Member—made it clear that the Northern Ireland Assembly was a legitimate target. He and his supporters worked for a year to bring it down. It was clear that their actions were designed to achieve that goal.
  I must tell the Secretary of State that the situation has not improved over the past 13 years. The basis on which to make a real comparison is not one of statistics, even though we are told that this year could probably be the worst for terrorism since 1976. The basis on which to make a real comparison is to assess the potential of the Provisional IRA to cause death and destruction. Its capability to cause death and destruction—the House may not like to hear this—is greater today than it has been in any other period during the present campaign. It is no use fudging the issue or trying to pretend the IRA out of existence. It is a fact.
  What are the essentials for any terrorist organisation? The first is manpower. The provisional IRA still has young recruits coming out of school. The godfather of terrorism

  555
  has never been put away. The IRA are now getting hardline belligerent republicans, who, when the troubles started, were first out on the street. Those people are starting to come out of gaol to augment the organisation and to pass on their experience to the young recruits.
  The second essential of a terrorist organisation is expertise. Long Kesh is very much the Sandhurst of the IRA. That is where IRA men gain their training and expertise. At the Maze prison museum there are books, assembly devices, arms and ammunition—an arsenal of equipment that has been found. The training of the people who are brought to Maze prison continues in that prison so that as soon as they get out they can pass on their expertise to people in the IRA.
  The third essential of a terrorist organisation is finance. Those who have been to the United States of America will have seen from where substantial sums of money are coming, including organisations such as NORAID and the American Ancient Order of Hibernians. Funds come not only from the gifts of misled Americans but from building contractors, bank robbers, racketeering and other dubious enterprises in Northern Ireland. The organisation's finances are greater today than they have ever been.
  If finance is available, weaponry will be available as well, and that is the fourth essential of terrorism. The IRA has not only a ready supply of armalites and other weapons that come from the so-called free world but the Kalashnikov assault rifle. The IRA can obtain its explosives from Bulgaria and from ready and willing Governments, including Libya. It can obtain expertise from other international terrorist organisations.
  Just the other day, we talked to an Israeli Member of Parliament who made it clear that the IRA had been present in Lebanon when training was being given. The IRA's weaponry, expertise, finance and manpower is greater today than it has ever been.
  I can give two more essentials of terrorism. The first is the support for the organisation. Whether or not we like the idea, we must admit that polls have shown that support for Sinn Fein has not diminished but increased. If support is available to Sinn Fein the IRA will resolve to continue.
  Why should the IRA, believing in its principles, give up at this stage? The IRA believes, as firmly as any other terrorist organisation in such circumstances, that it can make the British Government do things under threat that they would never do by persuasion or argument. That is the essential on which any terrorist organisation feeds. The IRA believes that by terrorism it can force the hands of the British Government.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Chris Patten)indicated dissent.
  Mr. Robinson: The Minister need not shake his head. Those of us who live in Northern Ireland can recall that the B Special was taken away because of the pressure from organisations such as the IRA. the Royal Ulster Constabulary was reorganised and our Parliament was taken away. Even our electoral system was changed—again to appease those in our society who were rebellious. Every type of change was made to try to appease and make a compromise with such people. Changes are made under threat and it would be wrong for the Minister to deny that fact.
  This renewal order must be made because violence is still very much a reality in Northern Ireland. Violence is
  556
  continuing because of the failure of this Government and previous Governments. The Government are failing because their policy is wrong. Our policy is one of reaction. We wait until the IRA hits and we then decide how to respond. Alternatively, through intelligence, or intelligent assumptions, we try to assume who the IRA's next target might be or what it might attack next. We try to provide protection for that thing or person. Loyalists and public representatives are under threat. Therefore, we have to think of giving them further protection. By doing so, we take away men who should be protecting something else. If we run a security policy on the basis of trying to think what target may be next — there are so many targets that they cannot all be covered—we are on the wrong policy. The only policy against terrorism that can work is one in which we go ruthlessly on to the offensive.
  The Secretary of State tells us that his policy is not one of containment. He is right. He is not containing anything. Nothing is being contained. Violence is continuing unabated and the IRA grows in strength. The IRA can be beaten, but it can be beaten only with a change of policy. The Secretary of State says that many tell us that the policy is wrong, but they do not say how it should be changed. He should know, for we have told him often enough, what changes he should make. Some of them have been mentioned in the debate. The first essential is that the Secretary of State, in his security policy, has the moral resolution to win. I listened carefully to him today. On few other occasions has he been so tough as he was today. My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) rightly says that words are fine, but action is what people are looking for. There was a hint of resolution in the Secretary of State's words, but moral resolution or what we in Northern Ireland call the guts to govern is what is needed. Terrorism is based on the belief that terrorists can threaten or push the Government to do things that otherwise they would not do.
  Having established that the moral resolution to win is there, we need changes in operational policy. The border has been mentioned by many Members. Whether we want to consider other matters or not, it is the essential in the security situation. It represents the lines of supply for the bases set up in Northern Ireland. It represents the routes through which those based in the Irish Republic come. The border is difficult to secure. I do not know whether any border can be totally secure. I do not say that the task is easy, but in other countries difficult borders, some perhaps more difficult than the one in Northern Ireland, have been made tight against terrorist infiltration. The Minister must know that there are too many roads from Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland for effective security. There must be a reduction in the number of roads crossing our border.
  The Secretary of State should inform the Chief Constable—unfortunately, we cannot inform him—that the B Specials had an effective border sealing operation on the road junctions. Whatever road one takes to get from the Republic to Northern Ireland, at some stage one must go through key junctions. The B Specials operated checkpoints at those junctions. If the Secretary of State has only a minimal number of cross-border roads, more effective security on the roads that are open and proper patrols further back, he will find that, with additional bases along the border, he can more easily dominate it. If it is not 100 per cent. secure, it will be more secure than

  557
  it is today, when one can walk freely from one side to the other without seeing a member of our security forces. The border is undoubtedly a major aspect.
  Terrorists plan, plot and launch their operations on many occasions from within Northern Ireland. The security forces are aware of the existence of the IRA in certain areas. The only policy for such areas is proper search and seizure operations. Operations of that type have taken place in Northern Ireland and have been successful. Unless that type of operation is increased, the IRA will be able to sleep peacefully in the knowledge that it will be undisturbed. It can plot and plan its operations in the knowledge that the security forces will not arrive at its door.
  If hon. Members examine the statistics of finds by the security forces, they will realise that there has been a steady reduction in the tonnage of explosives found. In 1981, 3.4 explosive tonnes were found, in 1982 the figure was 2.26 tonnes, and the 1983 figure is 1.86 tonnes. In 1981, 398 firearms were found, in 1982 the figure was 282 and the 1983 figure is 149.
  In 1981, 47,070 rounds of ammunition were found, in 1982 the figure was 41,453, and the 1983 figure is 33,777. Finds of rockets and rocket launchers since 1981 have almost halved. Those facts show that the necessary search and seizure operations are not being carried out, and certainly not to the same extent as previously. Operations of that type must increase.
  The Secretary of State should consider a tougher sentencing policy. Whenever the right hon. Gentleman is questioned about this matter, he says that it is the responsibility of the courts. Of course, the courts must sentence according to law. He has the power to impose mandatory minimum sentences which would ensure that tougher sentences are available for terrorist crimes.
  I do not wish to alarm the House, but if hon. Members examine what happens in our courts they will discover that one-third of those found guilty of terrorist crimes walk through the doors of the courtrooms as free men. Such crimes range from membership of illegal organisations up to and including participation in murder. Three-quarters of those found guilty of being members of an illegal organisation in Northern Ireland walk free, having received non-custodial sentences. I thought that we were supposed to be at war with the IRA. What type of deterrent is that to any peson belonging to a terrorist organisation?
  Let us imagine a group of 100 IRA men. Apart from the fact that only 40 per cent. will ever be arrested, about 35 of the 40 who are arrested will be found not guilty of an offence. Of those found guilty, one-third will receive non-custodial sentences. Those who end up in prison receive 50 per cent. remission on their sentences, assuming that they do not escape. That is no deterrent to terrorists in Northern Ireland. Surely, a tougher sentencing policy can be divised. The Secretary of State cannot dodge the issue by saying that it is a matter for the courts.
  The right hon. Gentleman could also gain more support from the community in Northern Ireland. The people in Northern Ireland wish to see the Dominic McGlincheys of the world behind bars. They could help if they knew what Dominic McGlinchey looks like. When I pass police stations on this side of the Irish Sea the posters outside are for persons wanted for rape, theft or less significant crimes.
  558
  I see wanted posters in England. Why cannot we have wanted posters in Northern Ireland, so that the public could give information that would help the security forces to track down such people? If we need to encourage certain sections of our community to give information, we could offer a reward. It is not unusual in Britain to offer a reward for information leading to the arrest of a wanted person. Why cannot the Secretary of State press for such a policy, so that the public can be of assistance to the security forces?
  The Secretary of State should also speak to the Chief Constable about the RUC's overtime. We are told that there are no restrictions on overtime and that the Chief Constable is getting all that he wants. However, there are restrictions on overtime in Northern Ireland. I recall the Sunday News being raided by the RUC a few months ago, because the newspaper had a police document and had printed an article implying that at a hall formerly in the constituency of the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), but now, because of boundary changes, in my constituency, a young girl had been killed with a gun known to belong to the INLA. The investigating officer wrote a report saying that his investigations had been curtailed because of overtime restrictions, and that the killer of that girl had got away free as a result. If that happened in that case, it could have happened in many others. Of course, the police got the document and the story away from the Sunday News.
  There is a restriction on overtime. Everybody in Northern Ireland knows that. People can speak to policemen, and know that there is a restriction on the number of hours worked and the effect of that. For example, police vehicles are repaired at the workshop in Lislea drive. However, there are never more than 30 vehicles in for repair. As a result of the overtime restrictions, almost 200 vehicles are waiting to be repaired. The number is increasing every day, and vehicles are now being sought in the stations. The police need them, but they cannot get them because of the overtime ban. Things have reached such a stage that the workers at the Lislea drive workshop have gone on an unofficial go-slow.
  The Secretary of State must realise that there are restrictions on overtime, and must ensure that no such restrictions on those carrying out operational duties or on those who give support to them, hinder them in their fight against terrorism. The Secretary of State implies that he seldom receives any suggestions, but I could mention several. If he wants to help the border area, he should increase the number of SAS men. There is great respect in Northern Ireland for the SAS-type activity. It has had advantages in many parts of the world, as well as in Northern Ireland. It is a sort of covert operation. However, I realise that there are limitations on what the Secretary of State can tell the House about SAS duties in the Province. Nevertheless, I hope that he will give an assurance to the people of Northern Ireland that there is a sufficient number of SAS men along the border area now, and that he is prepared to consider an increase in the number.
  The Secretary of State implied that people would have tough things to say about him personally. I know that my words will not have given him much comfort, but I have not made any personal attack on him. I realise the difficult job that anybody in his position has to do. In all my dealings with him, I have respected his sincerity. But a man can be sincere and still be sincerely wrong. The right

  559
  hon. Gentleman's policy on security is sincerely wrong and is costing lives in Northern Ireland. It must be changed. He must face that reality and change the policy before there are any more deaths in the Province. Its failure is written in the blood of innocent victims in our Province, and the Secretary of State cannot dodge that. It must be changed, and changed now.

  Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions)
  10.30 pm
  Mr. Stephen Ross: I congratulate the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker) on his maiden speech and thank him for reminding us of Johnny McQuade. I remember the time when Johnny McQuade questioned President Nixon in the Grand Committee Room. President Nixon did not know what had hit him. It was a most enjoyable evening.
  I fully appreciate the feelings of all those hon. Members from Northern Ireland who have spoken this evening and share in full measure the horror and anger that they have expressed about what has been taking place, in particular in the past few weeks. But I feel especially sorry for the Secretary of State and his fellow Ministers, because they are in a no-win situation. Like their predecessors, they have an unenviable job.
  The interventions in the Secretary of State's speech brought home to me the fact that it is a pity that the leaders of the four parties in Northern Ireland—or the three which turned down the invitation—did not accept the Secretary of State's invitation to meet the Chief Constable and the GOC. Some of the questions that they have been asking tonight could have been answered at that meeting.
  Alliance Members who try to educate ourselves about Northern Ireland affairs cannot understand why it is not possible for the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) to be present with the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) on such occasions. They meet each other in the House and in the European Parliament. I am sure that they sometimes even drink together.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I cannot allow that remark to pass. I am known as a teetotaller — as one who is totally opposed to the Devil's buttermilk.
  Mr. Ross: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. Perhaps the hon. Gentlemen take a cup of tea together. Certainly they both utterly condemn the violence in the Province, and I do not understand why they cannot now meet. There has been much criticism of the Chief Constable. I have always liked and respected the Chief Constable when I have met him. I cannot speak with the first-hand knowledge of other hon. Members, but I cannot believe that it is impossible for the hon. Gentlemen to meet him together and put the questions to him direct.
  I fully support the Secretary of State's declaration that the defeat of terrorism must be our principal concern. I realise that some hon. Members on the Official Unionist Bench and also on the Opposition Benches will have knowledge of the debate that took place at my party's assembly, and the visits by some young members of my party to the Province and to the South. I have dissociated myself from some of the remarks that have been made following those visits.
  560
  Over the years I have tried to inform myself on the problems of Ireland, but I never expected to see a picture in an English newspaper of a British citizen in the constituency of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) — a farmer's wife —protecting her husband with a rifle while he ploughed the fields. That struck home. I felt that I just could not accept such a situation in our country.
  No one has mentioned the continuing condemnation by many leading politicians in the South of the activities of Sinn Fein, and in particular of Mr. Gerry Adams. After some of his remarks in the South the other day, a senator called for his arrest. We should also not forget that at the moment an Englishman is being held hostage for a ransom of £5 million. One wonders what on earth is happening to that poor man.
  The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) made a brave speech. I am not brave enough to go all the way with him. I truly believe that the only sensible way forward now—this is not the time for new initiatives—is to get the closest possible co-operation between the Dublin Government and ourselves in the defeat of terrorism and the strengthening of economic links. Some developments in the energy field, for example, seem to make a great deal of sense.
  Despite the tragic events in recent weeks, there is a continuing need to increase public confidence not only' within the Province but in the United Kingdom generally and in America and Europe. That is why in the evidence that we have submitted to Sir George Baker and, in a resolution recently approved by my party's council. we are calling for some substantial revisions of the 1978 Act. We hope that they will be included among his recommendations when they are published some time in the new year.
  We should like to go rather beyond his remit and seek the establishment of an independent prosecution service in Northern Ireland. We know that that is being studied for England and Wales, but we believe that it is even more important for the Province.
  The reintroduction of jury trial is of course problematical. I welcome the words of the hon. Member for Antrim, North on that subject. No doubt jury trial in most terrorist cases is impractical, but we believe that juries should sit in non-terrorist cases unless the prosecuting counsel can convince the High Court judge that there would be a substantial risk of intimidation or a perverse acquittal if they did. There could be a further safeguard of a right of appeal against the judge's decision in such cases.
  A less satisfactory alternative that has been mentioned this evening would be to give the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland discretion to de-schedule all scheduled offences rather than the limited number over which he can use his discretion at present. We prefer the former alternative because we believe that we should avoid Executive de-scheduling.
  We have always felt that it would be highly desirable for serious cases heard in the absence of a jury to be heard by three judges rather than one as at present. I accept that that may cause problems, because there is a shortage of judges. We should pay a tribute to the courage of those who administer justice in the Province, some of whom have lost their lives in so doing.
  The Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976 is to have a fixed life of five years as a result of Lord Jellicoe's recommendations. We believe that it is

  561
  important that the emergency provisions legislation adopts the same limitation, although we would rather see it reduced to three years.
  The need to tape-record interviews is as pressing in Northern Ireland as it is in the rest of the United Kingdom. I trust that that will be another of Sir George Baker's recommendations. We could well go further and videotape.
  I appreciate the problems of the Royal Ulster Constabulary over supergrasses. I cannot condemn the practice outright. I have expressed anxiety when the system has been used to obtain convictions in England and Wales, which is something that many commentators tend to forget.
  I remind the House that there are three prisons in my constituency. I was involved in a case when a man was sentenced to 12 years' imprisonment solely on the evidence of a well-known supergrass. The case was referred to the Court of Appeal, but I have grave doubts about it. Nevertheless, the case did not raise an outcry in this country, but immediately such a system is used in Northern Ireland everyone is up in arms.
  I believe that the National Council for Civil Liberties is reviewing the problem. I am convinced that any amendment of present practices must apply throughout the United Kingdom and not just to Northern Ireland. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Antrim, North on that.
  We must plainly wait to see what Sir George Baker recommends, but in the meantime we must support the renewal of the emergency provisions and hope that some of our proposals will have been taken on board before we discuss the renewal of these powers again.
  Several Hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I call the next hon. Member, may I say that the House may wish to know that the Minister hopes to reply to the debate at about 11.15 pm. Four hon. Members are still hoping to speak, so brief speeches would be a great help.
  10.43 pm
  Mr. Ken Maginnis: I studied what had been said in previous debates on this subject to prepare for this debate. I thought that it would be useful to see whether anything had changed. I found that the fundamental need to protect the civil liberties and human rights of the people of Northern Ireland was emphasised. I believe that that is an ideal to which everyone can subscribe. However, we know that it is impossible to protect civil liberties when the rule of law does not exist. When we talked about civil liberties in the past, we related it mostly to those who came before the courts, but we tended to forget those who must stand up to the violence that has pervaded Northern Ireland for 13 years.
  Hansard has shown that the Ministers who introduced such debates always started by rehearsing where the rule of law has failed. This time last year, the Minister discussed how it had failed in the aftermath of the Ballykelly bombing. This year, sadly, we are talking about the murder of Edgar Graham, who was a great personal friend. He was an upright young man with great integrity, and he set an example to many politicians in that he never
  562
  sought short-term political advantage but always looked for the long-term advantage to the people of Northern Ireland in any decision that he made.
  During those 13 years there have been many incidents equally as sad as the murder of Edgar Graham. We have been told many times that there is no panacea for the trouble, but we have neither asked for nor expected a panacea. However, we recognise that the laws of the land must be put into effect. There is no point in having laws if they fail, yet the rule of law has failed under successive Governments during the past 13 years. We have not obeyed the basic rules that must be employed in the fight against terrorism. The first basic rule is that one never concedes anything to the terrorist. Unfortunately, during those 13 years terrorists seem to have been too wise for successive Governments, because hiding behind the minority—as it is called—Roman Catholic population, they have squeezed concession after concession from Governments.
  We have not realised that the introduction of proportional representation for elections in Northern Ireland is a disaster. It has done nothing to get the people together; rather it has provided the opportunity for irresponsible and violent minorities to abuse the ballot box. The House is very wise not to be tempted to set out on the proportional representation trail in Great Britain.
  We have failed to curb the glorification of violence, which we see continually on our television screens and hear on the radio. The funeral of the two terrorists shot by the security forces at the weekend was not portrayed as a defeat for terrorism but was used as an opportunity to glorify it. The so-called hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Adams) and some of his cohorts were in the forefront of the funeral cortege, thus promoting the cause of terrorism and the IRA.
  We have also failed in some small, but important, matters. We have not curbed illegal voting in elections. We hear the oft-recited defence by people who are caught voting illegally, "But your honour, it is a great Irish tradition." Nonsense. There is always a degree of personation no matter in what country an election takes place, but the organised personation that occurs in Northern Ireland is a disgrace to a democratic system.
  We have failed to say to the Social Democratic and Labour party, "Certainly you will have your rights and the Catholic minority will have its rights, but those rights are within a state whose sovereignty is inviolate."
  We have failed to listen to the cry for help from the minority community who want better security and who want the godfathers taken out of their midst even if it means the internment of Gerry Adams, Danny Morrison, Owen Can-on and such people. I have been told again and again by those belonging to the minority, "We do not want them in our midst. If you can take them away then our 17 and 18-year-old sons will be safe." It is difficult for parents to know where their sons of that age are. Many of them do not want their children to engage in violence, but how attractive to the young men those people must have seemed on television on the day the funerals took place. Here were people being portrayed on national television as heroes. It was shameful.
  The Secretary of State said that perhaps we would be hard on him today. I have no intention of being hard on him. I know he said that he was well able to stand up to anything I could throw at him. I am able to stand up to the little innuendo that I should not say too much about the

  563
  security forces and how they should operate lest I appear to be something of a know-all. I have never claimed that I have more knowledge than any member of the security forces in Northern Ireland. The last time he used that argument with me he said that there were a lot of people who had more experience than I had. That is a different thing. I probably have as much experience as anyone he cares to mention.
  Successive Governments have failed to listen to the suggestions we have made. We know the country and what is required. My right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) showed clearly that the basis of the problem lies on the frontier between the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland. I was disappointed when the Secretary of State admitted that there was a Dundalk corridor. Of course, he was absolutely right. He could have admitted that there was a Monaghan salient or a Fermanagh freeway. These are routes by which the terrorist has no trouble importing guns and explosives. If he has been away for a training session in Donegal, he comes along and commits another murder or two or three. If things get too hot and the security forces are closing in on him, he can disappear across the frontier again into the haven of the Irish Republic.
  I am disappointed again that the best that the Secretary of State could do yesterday was to reintroduce the Baldonnell panel, about which I had forgotten. It was introduced by the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) in 1974 but had lapsed and fallen into disuse. I am not sure that something that had fallen into disuse nine years ago is something we expect in 1983.
  None the less, I was encouraged by the tone of what the Secretary of State said. I know how deeply he feels about the problems, and that he regrets every death and would do all in his power to prevent any further deaths occurring. It is in recognition of that that we are here tonight telling him that we want to help, and we want a reasonable solution, but he must listen to the elected representatives of the people. He cannot go on telling us that he relies only on the advice of the Chief Constable and the GOC. It is unfair to put the GOC in that position, because he acts in response to the Chief Constable.
  What about the Chief Constable's assurances that he had enough men? I said earlier today that, in about 100 square miles in a part of my constituency on a number of nights—I have watched this carefully—there are four or five men on duty after midnight until 8 o'clock in the morning.
  I do not have much faith in the performance of the Chief Constable, I am sorry to say. When we criticised him, he got a vote of confidence from the Police Authority. Let me tell the House about that vote of confidence. One would have expected that the Police Authority met as a body, discussed the performance of the Chief Constable and issued the vote of confidence, but that was not so. The chairman of the Police Authority decided to draft a vote of confidence which, I have reason to believe, he informed the Chief Constable he would be circulating among members. Each member of the Police Authority was telephoned and asked, "Will you append your name to this? Remember, we appointed the Chief Constable, and we had better back him up. So-and-so and so-and-so have already agreed to this, so will you?" What an easy way to get a vote of confidence—but what does it mean?
  Rev. Ian Paisley rose——
  Mr. Maginnis: I shall not give way, as I have been asked to hurry.
  Let me now deal with the Dowra affair, because again the Chief Constable has said that there no allegations against him. He is right, but what happened was that the commissioner of the Garda wrote to the Chief Constable with a list of disturbing facts and suggested that the Chief Constable should investigate those facts. I am told that the Chief Constable responded by saying that the allegations were unfounded. The commissioner replied that he had not made any allegations, but had reported the disturbing facts and wanted them investigated. It would be wise for the Secretary of State or the Police Authority to encourage the Chief Constable to conduct an inquiry into the Dowra affair, and then it could be put behind us once and for all, for it is affecting the morale of every man in the RUC.
  We have received other assurances. For example, we had an assurance from the Irish Republic that the Criminal Law Jurisdiction At would be the panacea in that if we did not catch the terrorists in Northern Ireland we would get them in the Irish Republic and bring them to trial. Later I read in a new publication that the Garda assistant commissioner, Joe Ainsworth, under instructions from the Taoiseach, from Charles Haughey, told Ministers and officials that they could not afford to implement that Act. I am sure that the Prime Minister did not know that when she was in Dublin for meetings. So much for silver teapots.
  We were told officially last week that RUC personnel were not patrolling close to the frontier. It would be ridiculous to expect them to patrol there because they are neither trained nor equipped to carry out the military operation that they would undoubtedly be called on to carry out were they patrolling right up to the frontier. The RUC will not be effective in that area until we provide military cover, and that cover will require one third of the Regular Army troops who, the Secretary of State has assured me, are based in Northern Ireland.
  They would need to be situated in 75 firm bases; and by "firm bases" I do not mean that the soldiers in them would never move out. They would be bases from which consistent and well co-ordinated patrolling could take place over the whole length of the frontier. It would need one base every four miles with a platoon in every base, so that 35 men would be responsible for patrolling to a depth of two or three miles a length of frontier four miles wide. That would not seal the frontier, but it would dominate the area, allow the rule of law to operate and permit the men of the RUC to move towards the frontier without feeling —indeed, without the almost sure knowledge—that they may be blown up by a land mine.
  Once we had established domination along the frontier by the Regular Army, the RUC would be more effective because they could operate in smaller numbers. Perhaps I should not have said that, because last night I came across an RUC patrol close to the frontier comprised of two men and one vehicle. While, therefore, we do not want smaller patrols, they would patrol with more confidence.
  The UDR would, of course, provide internally an excellent back-up to the RUC. About 32,000 members of the Northern Ireland community have served in the UDR since its inception. If during that period a minute number of the members of that force have stepped outside the law, that must be viewed against the background of the vast majority of those 32,000 members who have not, and of

  565
  recognises that 136 members of the regiment have been murdered by terrorists, 108 of them were off duty and doing their ordinary day-to-day work.
  If the Secretary of State, in replying, were to advocte the policy that I have advocated today, there would be no reprisal killings because there would be a new confidence within the community. Witnesses would not be frightened to come before the courts. An amazing thing happened some time ago when a policeman was murdered after coining out of chapel in Armagh. Although 300 people came out with him, there was not a single witness. No one saw anything. The opposite is also the case. Two terrorists were shot in Coalisland on Sunday last, and I think that half the country saw that.
  We would have no need for Diplock courts and no need for supergrasses. If that were the case, I believe that, in a years' time, we would have no need to renew the Act.
  11.6 pm
  Mr. Martin Flannery: I shall try to be brief, as we have had many long speeches today.
  I believe that we shall be here in 20 years' time—certainly in 10 years' time—if the type of debate to which I have listened umpteen times in the past 10 years continues as it has today. We have not discussed seriously anything other than security. The political realities of Northern Ireland, which spawn the terrorism, have not been discussed. We shall all be here discussing the problems in years to come unless we grapple with them.
  The speech of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) was, as usual, arid and barren and conveyed the impression that terrorism comes from only one side. One would think that there had never been any Shankhill "butchers" or bombings from the Unionist side. The Labour party abominates terrorism. We are completely opposed to it, from whichever source it comes—from the Unionist side or from the other side. The appalling murder of Mr. Graham yesterday, about which I spoke, shocked us beyond measure. I wish to reiterate that and place it on the record.
  The great danger now is that any increase in this senseless slaughter, even one more dreadful murder, especially that of someone as prominent as Mr. Graham, could produce a landslide into the abyss. The hon. Member for Belfast, East said what some of us have been saying for years, when even Labour Front Bench spokesmen were telling us how much better things were becoming. Many of us warned that things would get worse unless some political solution to the problem of Northern Ireland was found. It is frightening to hear the cynicism in some quarters when one says that the deeper solution is political and that what is happening has been spawned by the failure to find a political solution after that border was drawn around an in-built Protestant majority, which was bound to produce what it has produced.
  It is against a background of continuing unrest that the hon. Member for Belfast, East confesses that the emergency provisions legislation has done no good. Indeed, the situation is worse than when the legislation was introduced. There must be something profoundly wrong when the situation is admitted to be worse than it has ever been. It must not be divorced from the political background, so complex and intractable, which faces us
  566
  all. We must try to maintain law and order — [Interruption]—without the crude interruptions that come from certain quarters.
  Rev. William McCrea: Come on, Gerry Adams, speak up.
  Mr. Flannery: —and observe civil rights and freedom of the individual. At the same time, we must try to maintain law and order, despite the presence of disorderly Members such as the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea), who is comparatively new to the House. Between 17,000 and 18,000 arrests have taken place since 1978 and about 1,000 convictions have resulted. If the killings and arrest had taken place here on the mainland, there would have been perhaps millions of arrests as well as dreadful killings and maimings. The hon. Member for Belfast, East never mentioned how many arrests there would have been and how few convictions would have resulted. This must surely be a matter of great concern to us all.
  When will we receive the report of the review body, for which we are all waiting, which will tell us how the Act has dealt with the problem? The upsurge in recent weeks is appalling to us all, but what is more appalling is that we all know that we shall face it with despair because nothing will be done about it. The Unionists adopt an intractable attitude to the minority community and the minority community makes it plain that it will not go to the Assembly because there is no chance of its ever winning the majority vote. It is in permanent subservience to a pseudo-democracy which has spawned all the killing.
  In the Diplock courts there are no juries. They are presided over by one judge. In addition, we have supergrasses. There is one judge who sits alone without a jury or assessors. In front of him is likely to appear a perjured murderer who proceeds to condemn his friends. There is such cynicism that the system is considered reasonable. We know that every aspect of natural justice is being violated. When every violation takes place, a new layer of paramilitaries is formed. It is probably formed by young people who are appalled at what is happening in the violation of justice and the way in which people are put away on the word of the so-called supergrasses. If that is what we want to happen in Northern Ireland, we deserve not to solve the problem. We are conniving at the problems by not grappling with them in a proper manner.
  Does anyone really believe that the Diplock procedure is a substitute for a proper trial or a serious attempt to get to grips with the political background which has produced this horrific situation? The issues are virtually never discussed politically even though we all know that it is basically a political problem and that the solution will have to be political. I fear that the emergency powers, alongside the Prevention of Terrorism Bill, the last Committee sitting of which took place this morning, will steadily become permanent and will wrongly be seen as a substitute for a real political analysis culminating in real democracy in Northern Ireland.
  This morning the emergency provisions were regarded as permanent. The idea of their being temporary was not mentioned until the Minister reintroduced it in his final speech. The mentality that regards the provisions as permanent now adds to the sense of hopelessness that hon. Members feel about the intractable problem in Northern Ireland. It is true that we are not getting any further in this

  567
  matter. The melancholy lists of gaoling and killing will go on forever, unless we get down to a proper discussion of the issues.
  Communal politics and tribal groupings, where one group, because it is bigger than another, is always bound to win, are no substitute for political democracy and are bound to produce killings. That must be changed, or the killing will go on. If the mentality that produces that killing does not come to grips with what is occurring and there is no discussion with the rest of Ireland, we shall be saying the same things in six months, a year or 10 years. No amount of emergency provision and prevention of terrorism legislation will solve the problem of the lack of democracy that produced the killings.
  Terrorists and murdereres could not flourish in a society in which all the people, across sectarian barriers, elected representatives with no sectarian prejudices. The Assembly is a complete failure. It is failing because it is seen by the minority community as an attempt to restore the old Stormont. That is why the minority community will not go into the Assembly. The same people will be in it, and there will be the same lack of democracy that existed previously. The Assembly is seen as a latter-day attempt to legitimise the domination of one tribe over the other when such domination has failed because of the lack of any real cross-community democracy, such as exists in the rest of the United Kingdom.
  So long as that attitude exists, the terrorists will have their day. No amount of security can solve the problems of Northern Ireland. Many of my hon. Friends believe that more and new efforts must be exerted to involve both communities in the democratic process in a way that they have never been involved before.
  It is getting late. I have sat in the Chamber all day. I have been the only Labour party speaker, apart from those on the Opposition Front Bench. We are the main Opposition, but we were not allowed to enter the debate until the last minute.
  Rev. William McCrea: Where are the others?
  Mr. Flannery: To underline our belief that no proper debate and discussion has occurred on any matter but security, some of us will vote against these emergency provisions as a protest, because nothing will be done about them. They will continue forever unless there is a political discussion.
  11.18 pm
  The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I deliberately delayed replying to the debate to allow as many hon. Members as possible to make contributions, especially those who have the immensely difficult task of representing Northern Ireland.
  We have had a very wide-ranging debate on security issues, although that is not surprising, because we are discussing the renewal of the emergency provisions legislation. In a sense, I am helped by having only a short time in which to reply, because it is inappropriate for me to go into any detail about the emergency provisions Act while the review of Sir George Baker is under way. We hope that, within two or three months, he will have reported, and then we hope that there will be an opportunity for the House to debate his recommendations and to look at the future of the legislation.
  I apologise if, in the light of the short time that I have, I do not deal with every intervention made. I pay tribute
  568
  to the excellent maiden speech of the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker). He spoke with felicity, humour and charm. We greatly enjoyed hearing his speech. We look forward to hearing him speak on other occasions. There are only two matters on which I take the mildest of issues with the hon. Gentleman. First, he used the phrase "the acceptable level of violence", perhaps giving the impression to a casual listener that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State implied that there was an acceptable level of violence, whereas my right hon. Friend said precisely the reverse and insisted that we would accept no such thing.
  Secondly, the hon. Gentleman paid tribute to the Army, the RUC and the UDR, to which we owe so much. I shall return to this issue in the context of another speech. I was sorry that the hon. Gentleman added his voice in criticism of the Chief Constable. However, I congratulate him. One would never have guessed that he was operating in a new sphere. We also appreciated the generous tribute that he paid to Johnny McQuade, whom we remember with such affection in the House.
  The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Sole") made an important speech. He rightly mentioned the fundamental problem that is raised by this son of legislation—the need to balance the necessity to win the battle against terrorism with the minimum derogation from the human rights and civil liberties that we expect in the United Kingdom. It is important in that balance that we should never forget to weigh the rights of those who have been killed and maimed in the past and of those who may be killed and maimed in the future, unless the battle against terrorism is won.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to supergrasses and converted terrorists. That is not a system, as it is sometimes alleged, nor is it something that is suddenly new in Northern Ireland or the United Kingdom as a whole. Over a number of years, individuals have come forward to the police wishing to give evidence about the crimes allegedly committed by former associates in terrorist organisations. They come from both Republican and Loyalist terrorist groups. There is no reason why the police should ignore such information when it can be responsible for removing dangerous criminals from society and putting them where they belong, behind bars. Terrorists in Northern Ireland continue to threaten the integrity of the judicial process in the Province. As long as the proper judicial process is followed — I am convinced that it is—it is right that we should make use of converted terrorists to get those dangerous men out of circulation.
  The hon. Gentleman also referred to prosecution for plastic baton round deaths or injuries. Every single case when a death has been caused by a plastic baton round has been thoroughly investigated by the RUC. In every case, the papers have gone to the Director of Public Prosecutions. He has decided in those cases that there is no evidence upon which he can secure a conviction. He applies the same standards in those cases as he does to the others with which he has to deal. It is not for Ministers, but for the judicial process to take such decisions.
  I refer to the speech of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that he would look at the way in which Sinn Fein and its representatives are dealt with by the Administration. I shall not expand on that.

  569
  The hon. Gentleman made a most disgraceful attack on the Chief Constable of the RUC. It is easy to sit on the sidelines and snipe at the man who has the most difficult job as chief police officer, probably in the world, enforcing the law in a democratic society that is under terrorist attack. It has been my privilege, because of my ministerial responsibilities, to work closely with the Chief Constable. I have come to admire the commitment that he puts into his job. I am glad of the opportunity to reaffirm the Government's complete confidence in his work. He devotes his considerable energy, skill and experience to the full to discharging his onerous responsibilities on behalf of the entire community in Northern Ireland. A little more support from some of the political leaders in the Province would not go amiss as he tries to tackle his difficult task.
  For the hon. Member for Antrim, North to accuse my right hon. Friend of having failed the people of Northern Ireland, just about takes the biscuit. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman ever asks himself whether he has failed the people of Northern Ireland by the intransigence and inflexibility that he has shown in the past?
  Rev. Ian Paisley: The Under-Secretary of State should come to Northern Ireland, fight a seat and see how he gets on.
  Mr. Scott: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State discharges his duties to Northern Ireland with immense commitment and effort.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to the interval between arrest and trial in Northern Ireland, which is a matter of concern to the Government.
  The Director of Public Prosecutions, the courts and the police continue to cope well with processing the many cases involving serious offences. The average time between arrest and trial obviously fluctuates, depending on many factors, not least the rate of arrests. We monitor the position carefully. No one wishes there to be undue delay between arrest and trial. I shall refer to some statistics to show that the waiting time is decreasing. In September 1977, the untried prison population was 701; in 1981 the figure was 490, and in September 1983 the figure was 370. Hon. Members may say that the figure is too large, but the movement is in the right direction. We shall continue to monitor the position and seek an improvement as rapidly as we can.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) referred to the "Dowra", or "McGovern" affair, as it is sometimes called. One must recognise that occasionally there will be misunderstandings in dealing with the sensitive subject of co-operation between police forces on different sides of a border that witnesses the passage of terrorism, arms and ammunition. I regret any episode that leads to the misunderstanding. It arose because, when the Commissioner of the Garda Siochana first made his representation, the Chief Constable of the RUC decided that the issue should be treated as a formal complaint, and therefore to put in train the statutory procedures which follow the lodging of any such complaint. It later became clear that that was not the intention of Commissioner Wren. A full explanation of the background to the incident has been sent to the Commissioner. I wish everything humanly possible to be done to ensure that misapprehension does not continue
  570
  with police forces on either side of the border. Nothing must be allowed to affect the security co-operation between the RUC and the Garda. I assure the House that co-operation in that area is excellent.
  My hon. Friend also referred to the Enniskillen training centre. The police authority is awaiting clarification about some matters from Her majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary who is advising the authority. Once the police authority receives their final clarification, it will put proposals to the Secretary of State. The matter remains with the police authority. I hope that in a few months progress can be made.
  My hon. Friend also referred to the Baker report. He spoke with great authority in the debate, as he has previously, and I hope that he will give evidence to Sir George Baker. I am sure that Sir George would welcome the experience and knowldege of my hon. Friend.
  The hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) made an important contribution to the debate. He aserted that the three prongs of British policy in Northern Ireland in recent years were the criminalisation of the paramilitaries, the Ulsterisation of the security forces which were continuing, but that the construction of proper political structures, which would involve the two traditions in Northern Ireland, had been abandoned. Nothing could be further from the truth.
  The whole thrust of Government policy, with the White Paper of last summer, the Northern Ireland Act 1982 and the establishment of the assembly, was designed to ensure that there was a framework to enable the political leaders in Northern Ireland to come forward with proposals. The hon. Gentleman said that the Unionists have a veto on progress in these matters. Within the framework that we have established, and the opportunities that we have offered, both sides have the opportunity to veto further progress.
  We can only encourage them to move foward——
  It being half-past Eleven o'clock, MR. SPEAKER put the
  Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted
  business):—
  The House divided: Ayes 125, Noes 10.

  Division No. 92]

  [11.30 pm

  AYES

  Alexander, Richard

  Dunn, Robert

  Amess, David

  Eyre, Reginald

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Fallon, Michael

  Baldry, Anthony

  Farr, John

  Beggs, Roy

  Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Forth, Eric

  Berry, Sir Anthony

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Bottomley, Peter

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Hayward, Robert

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Hind, Kenneth

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Bright, Graham

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Brinton, Tim

  Lang, Ian

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Burt, Alistair

  Lightbown, David

  Butterfill, John

  Lilley, Peter

  Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

  Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

  Chope, Christopher

  Lord, Michael

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Coombs, Simon

  McCrea, Rev William

  Cope, John

  McCurley, Mrs Anna

  Couchman, James

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  MacGregor, John

  Dorrell, Stephen

  MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

  Dover, Denshore

  Maclennan, Robert

  571

  Maginnis, Ken

  Ryder, Richard

  Malins, Humfrey

  Sackville, Hon Thomas

  Malone, Gerald

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Maples, John

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Mather, Carol

  Scott, Nicholas

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)

  Merchant, Piers

  Speller, Tony

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Spencer, D.

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Murphy, Christopher

  Stern, Michael

  Needham, Richard

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Newton, Tony

  Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Nicholson, J.

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Norris, Steven

  Thurnham, Peter

  Oppenheim, Philip

  Tracey, Richard

  Osborn, Sir John

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Ottaway, Richard

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Page, John (Harrow W)

  Viggers, Peter

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Waddington, David

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  Walden, George

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)

  Penhaligon, David

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

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

  Watts, John

  Powley, John

  Whitney, Raymond

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Wilkinson, John

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Raffan, Keith

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Rathbone, Tim

  Wolfson, Mark

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Wood, Timothy

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Yeo, Tim

  Robinson, P. (Belfast E)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Mr. Michael Neubert and Mr. John Major.

  Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

  Rowe, Andrew

  NOES>

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Rogers, Allan

  Cohen, Harry

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

  Flannery, Martin

  Skinner, Dennis

  Hume, John

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Nellist, David

  Mr. Dennis Canavan and Ms. Harriet Harman.

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Continuance) (No. 2) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 24th November, be approved.

  Select Committee
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That Standing Order No. 99 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended, as follows:

  Paragraph 2, in the Table, item 1, leave out '9' and insert '11'.

  Paragraph 2, in the Table, item 3, leave out '9' and insert '11'.

  Paragraph 2, in the Table, item 4, leave out '9' and insert '11'.

  Paragraph 2, in the Table, leave out item 9.

  Paragraph 2, in the Table, item 11, leave out '9' and insert '11'.

  Paragraph 2, in the Table, after item 11, insert 'Trade and Industry/Department of Trade and Industry/11/3'.

  Line 20, leave out 'Industry and Trade' and insert 'Trade and Industry'.

  Line 38, at end insert—

  (d) to communicate to any other such committee its evidence and any other documents relating to matters of common interest, and

  (e) to meet concurrently with any other such committee for the purposes of deliberating, taking evidence, or considering draft reports. '—[Mr. Biffen.]

  Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr.Beith), in line 8, at end insert—
  Paragraph 2, in the Table, item 14, leave out '11' and insert '13'.
  It being after Ten o'clock, and objection being taken to further proceeding, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed tomorrow.
  Ordered,
  That Mr. David Ashby, Mr. Jack Aspinwall, Sir Antony Buck, Mr. Ray Ellis, Mr. Frank Haynes, Mr. James Pawsey. Mr. Bill Walker and Mr. Ken Weetch be members of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration.
  That Mr. Harry Cowans, Sir Philip Goodhart, Mrs. Sally Oppenheim, Mr. Tim Rathbone and Mr. Merlyn Rees be members of the Select Committee on Sound Broadcasting.
  That Mr. Barry Sheerman be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and Mr. Eric Deakins be added to the Committee.
  That Mr. Don Dixon be discharged from the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) and Mr. Norman Hogg be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Cope.]

  Rashida Abedi
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]
  11.43 pm
  Mr. Humfrey Malins: The quality of compassion is a rare but very precious quality. Governments who exercise it endear themselves to the people, strengthen the ties between Government and the electorate, and reinforce the principle of Government by consent.
  In this Adjournment debate, I ask the Government to exercise compassion in what I believe to be a truly exceptional immigration case. It is the case of Rashida Abedi, a 30-year-old deaf girl from Pakistan, who now lives in Croydon. Although her name may not be known in this House, I assure hon. Members that her case has fired the imagination of thousands of people in the Croydon area, who have taken it to their hearts, and who will follow this debate with great concern and interest.
  I must tell the House the background. Rashida Abedi is currently living with her 47-year-old brother in Croydon but was brought up in a remote area of Pakistan. When she was 16 she contracted meningitis and was placed in hospital. She made a miraculous recovery but shortly afterwards lost the hearing ability in her left ear. Before becoming ill she had hoped to take her matriculation examinations. She tried to resume her studies, but unfortunately she could not do so. In 1973 she had another relapse in Pakistan. She was put into hospital again, and again recovered, but this time she lost her hearing in her right ear, rendering her totally deaf. Total deafness is a tragedy.
  Prior to 1981, Rashida lived with her elderly widowed mother—her father had died when she was quite young—and her younger brother and sister who were aged about 18 and 17 respectively in 1981. They lived in a remote part of Pakistan. Ever since her father's death, her family had been, in effect, dependent on her elder brother Mr. Ali, who came to this country in 1968.
  The family position in Pakistan was far from ideal. It gave the girl little or no hope for the future. Her elderly mother suffered badly from chronic heart disease and severe arthritis, and her health is not improving. Her younger brother and sister could not be expected to provide for her. The younger sister would almost certainly marry and have to lead her own life, and the brother had to finish his education. Marriage has not been an option open to Rashida herself.
  Rashida and her family in Pakistan, pretty helpless, were supported for many years by Mr. Ali in this country. He has been here since 1968. He is a full-time British Telecom worker and is earning a substantial salary. He devoted himself to the care of Rashida while she was in Pakistan. He has remained a bachelor for the simple reason that Rashida, with her disabilities, needs his continuous help and support, both emotional and practical. She needs someone to care for her. He has made many sacrifices, and sent financial support to her in Pakistan over many years.
  In the Asian family system, the elder brother has a responsibility to look after his less able brothers and sisters. Mr. Ali has courageously and without complaint undertaken that responsibility for many years.
  That is the background. With the continued worsening of the family situation in Pakistan, and with nothing other
  574
  than a bleak future there both personally and medically—treatment there is quite inadequate—Rashida came to this country on 16 October 1981 to her brother's house in Croydon. She was admitted initially for six months. That period was subsequently extended until October 1982.
  It may be said that, when she first arrived, her brother said that she would be here only for a short-term visit. That may be so, but we must accept that after she had been here for a while it became clear to Mr. Ali that his hopes of curing her deafness here would be disappointed. He also realised that to continue to support her in Pakistan—sending her money and visiting her often enough to give her the non-material support that she needed — was beyond his means. He realised that he could well continue to care for Rashida if she remained here with him. He saw that during her time in England she had made enormous strides in confidence, learning to live with her disability and her problems. Her way of life in this country enabled her to compensate for her deafness and be independent to a degree not possible in Pakistan. None of those things could have been known to him when he brought her here.
  Rashida came for a visit, and her time was extended until October 1982. At about that time the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants argued that, on compasionate grounds, Rashida ought to be permitted to stay in the United Kingdom. That request was communicated to the Home Office and treated as an application to remain within the immigration rules. The application was for indefinite leave for Rashida to remain here as the dependant of her brother.
  The Secretary of State noted that Rashida had a mother, brother and sister in Pakistan with whom she had been living, and he was not satisfied that she had no other close relations in her own country to turn to. Nor did he think that evidence had been produced to satisfy him that she was living alone in the most exceptional compassionate circumstances, including having a standard of living substantially below that of her own country. In November 1982 the Secretary of State refused her application.
  Notice of appeal was given and the matter came before an adjudicator whose decision was published in June 1983. The adjudicator did not consider that Rashida circumstances, although unusual, were of an exceptionally compassionate nature. He believed that she had relatives to whom to turn in Pakistan and dismissed her appeal. I have tried to show that the position in Pakistan was such that she had no relatives to whom she could turn.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has powers to give consideration to Rashida's case outside the rules. He can justify the exercise of his discretion outside the rules in the most exceptional of circumstances. It is this discretion that I very much hope will be exercised tonight.
  I said that Rashida's case had fired the imagination of countless people in Croydon. This is true. Thousands signed petitions. Literally dozens of worthy organisations have expressed concern about her case, including Croydon Council for Community Relations, Croydon Moslem Women's Association, many Croydon churches, the Moslem Assocation of Croydon, the Pakistan Welfare Association—the list is impressive and almost endless. One influential group said:
  "Rashida has made successful attempts to learn English and is well on the way to becoming an independent member of society. She is of course handicapped by her deafness, but she seems to be overcoming this too. Has the Home Office given

  575
  sufficient weight to the Pakistan custom that after the father's death it is the elder brother's duty and privilege to take responsibility for unmarried women? In Pakistan there are no facilities for the deaf and no one capable of looking after Rashida".
  Since being in Croydon, Rashida has been a student in the English language scheme. Those responsible write of her that she is a woman of quite unusual courage. Despite her deafness, she has participated in every event that has taken place in association with the English classes that she attends. Although she has to lip read, she has managed in a short time to make consistent progress from the beginners to the upper intermediate level. She is quite determined to learn as much English as she can. She is not the sort of person to want to be dependent on others; she enjoys company and has a lot to contribute. They say that they are sure that if she is allowed to stay in Britain she will continue to progress and will go on to be an asset to the community as a whole, giving her energy towards helping others.
  There are so many arguments in favour of letting her stay. In Pakistan there are no proper facilities to help her, and no relatives able to provide proper support. Here the contrary is the case. She has a brother who has devoted himself in accordance with Pakistan custom, and with support of the mother, to his younger sister's welfare. He wants to continue to do so. Rashida has never received financial support from the state and she has made extraordinarily rapid progress in learning, despite her handicap. She is truly dependent on her brother Mr. Ali and will continue to be. The nature of dependency is rather like that of father and child. His sense of responsibility and self-sacrifice are greatly to be admired.
  Countless groups from welfare organisations and churches, and individuals have concerned themselves with the humanitarian aspects of Rashida's case. Quite simply, if she is allowed to stay she will continue to progress and to be an asset to the community as a whole. Send her back, and her future in Pakistan is bleak and full of misery. Here she has hope.
  I very much hope that the Government will be magnanimous and will show compassion in what thousands believe to be an exceptional case, and I speak for those thousands when I say, "May Rashida Abedi stay?"
  11.55 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Waddington): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Matins) for raising this case, which has aroused considerable concern locally, because it gives me the opportunity to explain why the Home Office made the decision that it did, and why it is not right to say that the Home Office lacks compassion.
  My hon. Friend has argued the case as strongly as anyone could, and no one present for this debate could fail to have considerable sympathy for Miss Abedi. However, I must tell him that, having considered the case with the utmost care, we do not believe that Miss Abedi should be granted settlement.
  Mr Syed Jafer Ali is obviously concerned for his sister's welfare, and it is not surprising that he should want her to enjoy the facilities that are available in Britain to assist those who are unfortunate enough to suffer from deafness, but we cannot admit people because we look after disabled people better than some other countries do.
  576
  The case has a long history of which the House should be informed. Mr. Ali contacted the Home Office in 1977 asking for advice on how he might bring his sister to Britain, either as a visitor or for permanent settlement. Contrary to what is stated in a leaflet published by an organisation calling itself the Friends of Rashida Abedi, there was no suggestion of her coming here to receive treatment for deafness. It was made clear at that time that she was deaf, and irreversibly so. Be that as it may, the Home Office replied to Mr. Ali——
  Mr. Allan Rogers: Does the Minister accept that part of the treatment for deafness is not just restoring hearing but accommodating the deaf person in society? The basis of the argument of the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Malins) was not that Rashida came here to receive treatment, but that she came here to be accommodated in society.
  Mr. Waddington: I do not doubt for a moment that that was the argument advanced by my hon. Friend, but at present I am rehearsing the history of the case. There is no doubt that the literature issued by that organisation suggested that Miss Abedi came here for medical treatment, although that was not the case. She came here after her brother had made it clear that she was irreversibly deaf.
  The Home Office replied to Mr. Ali giving Miss Abedi the sensible advice that she should seek an entry certificate before travelling to Britain. That advice was not followed, and in October 1981 Miss Abedi arrived at Heathrow with her brother and sought entry as a visitor. Mr. Ali told the immigration officer that his sister had had a hard life and that he wished to give her a break from looking after her mother. After assurances were given that she was coming only for a visit and that no extension of her stay would be sought, she was allowed into the country.
  I am afraid that the case turned out to be one of those where assurances are given but not honoured. However, the Home Office—which is often painted as being hardhearted—was still prepared to be generous, and when an extension was sought, and it was pleaded that Miss Abedi would definitely return to Pakistan in October 1982 because some relatives were travelling then and she could accompany them, an extension was granted. Again, the assurance was broken, and in September 1982 we received an application on Miss Abedi's behalf from the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, asking that she be allowed to stay in Britain indefinitely.
  Parliament in its wisdom made provision in the Immigration Act 1971 that we should be guided by rules in our operation of immigration control. Parliament has as recently as February of this year approved rules designed to limit strictly the number of people accepted for settlement here. It is not for us in the Home Office to ignore those rules or interpret them to our own convenience. The rules, while relatively generous to mothers and fathers of people settled here, reflect the wish of Parliament that we simply cannot be equally generous to brothers and sisters and more remote relatives.
  What the rules say is that to be accepted for settlement a dependent sister or brother must be living alone in the most exceptional compassionate circumstances, including having a standard of living substantially below that of his or her own country and that he or she must be mainly dependent on a relative settled in the United Kingdom.

  577
  We have never argued that Miss Abedi is not dependent financially upon her brother, but it is clear that she was not living alone in Pakistan. She was sharing a house with her mother, whom indeed, it was said, she was looking after. That house was also occupied by a younger brother and sister. She was not having to endure a particularly low standard of living. She did not, therefore, qualify under the rule; a rule which I should stress was in existence long before the present Government took office. As a result, her application was refused.
  When Miss Abedi appealed to the adjudicator, as was her right, he upheld the decision, saying among other things, that her circumstances, although unusual, were not of an exceptionally compassionate nature, that he was unable to accept that there were no facilities for the deaf in Pakistan and that he also did not accept that the condition of Miss Abedi's mother was so bad that she could give no assistance to her daughter. He did not add what he might have done—that Miss Abedi's mother would no doubt be very glad to have her daughter back. The argument of compassion does not flow just in one direction.
  578
  I can assure those who have been campaigning for Miss Abedi that the immigration rules are applied regardless of race. I can also assure them that we recognise that there will always be cases when it is right to act outside the rules because of exceptional circumstances, but this rule about relatives goes a long way to spell out what are exceptional circumstances. As I have explained, such circumstances do not arise in this case.
  Finally, I should emphasise that Miss Abedi is not applying to stay here for treatment for her handicap, and we do not admit people for settlement simply because the facilities available here to ameliorate the lot of those suffering from a particular handicap are better than elsewhere. How could we?
  For the moment, therefore, I can see no case for allowing Miss Abedi to remain here. If after her return to Pakistan there occurred a material change in her circumstances it would, of course, always be open to her to make an application for entry clearance for settlement under the provisons that I have already mentioned. Any such application would be looked at carefully and with sympathy in the circumstances then prevailing.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at three minutes past Twelve o' clock.

NATIONAL FINANCE
  Adrienne Maria Weihs
  Adrienne Maria Weihs
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  War Loan
  War Loan
  Civil Service (Women)
  Civil Service (Women)
  Political Donations
  Political Donations
  Building Societies (Annual Returns)
  Building Societies (Annual Returns)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Trafalager Square (New Year's Eve Incident)
  Trafalager Square (New Year's Eve Incident)
  Juvenile Offenders
  Juvenile Offenders
  Lorry and Coach Drivers
  Lorry and Coach Drivers
  Youth Custody (Girls)
  Youth Custody (Girls)
  Young Persons (Detention)
  Young Persons (Detention)
  Police and Criminal Evidence Bill
  Police and Criminal Evidence Bill
  Police Firearms
  Police Firearms
  Young Offenders
  Young Offenders
  Messenger Group Works, Warrington
  Messenger Group Works, Warrington
  London Fire Brigade
  London Fire Brigade
  Prison Building Programme
  Prison Building Programme
  Halton (Prison Project)
  Halton (Prison Project)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  El Salvador
  El Salvador
ENVIRONMENT
  Housing
  Housing
  Urban Programme
  Urban Programme
  Housing Land
  Housing Land
  Development Control
  Development Control
  Housing (Capital Receipts)
  Housing (Capital Receipts)
  Greater London Development Plan
  Greater London Development Plan
  Rent Increases
  Rent Increases
  London (Rate Equalisation)
  London (Rate Equalisation)
  Halton (Prison Project)
  Halton (Prison Project)
  Transfer Stations (Bristol and Bath)
  Transfer Stations (Bristol and Bath)
  Agricultural Hereditaments (Non-rating)
  Agricultural Hereditaments (Non-rating)
  Rent Assessment Committees (Membership)
  Rent Assessment Committees (Membership)
  Listed Buildings (River Thames)
  Listed Buildings (River Thames)
  Tenants' Associations
  Tenants' Associations
TRANSPORT
  Roads (Maintenance Expenditure)
  Roads (Maintenance Expenditure)
  Grants and Expenditure
  Grants and Expenditure
  Commuter Fares
  Commuter Fares
  Aircraft (Safety Standards)
  Aircraft (Safety Standards)
  Accident Statistics
  Accident Statistics
  London Regional Transport
  London Regional Transport
  MV Vishva Vikram
  MV Vishva Vikram
EMPLOYMENT
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
  European Social Fund
  European Social Fund
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Unemployed Minority Group Workers
  Unemployed Minority Group Workers
  Industrial Tribunals (Ethnic Minority Groups)
  Industrial Tribunals (Ethnic Minority Groups)
  Ethnic Monitoring
  Ethnic Monitoring
  Spectacle Frames and Lenses
  Spectacle Frames and Lenses
  Urban Wildlife Group, Birmingham
  Urban Wildlife Group, Birmingham
  Huddersfield
  Huddersfield
  Hotel and Catering Industry (Training)
  Hotel and Catering Industry (Training)
PRIME MINISTER
  Engagements
  Engagements
  Lennoxtown
  Lennoxtown
  Cyprus
  Cyprus
  Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
  Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
  Kidney Patients
  Kidney Patients
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  Sri Lanka (Military Assistance)
  Sri Lanka (Military Assistance)
  Health Authorities (Expenditure)
  Health Authorities (Expenditure)
  Universal Declaration of Human Rights
  Universal Declaration of Human Rights
ENERGY
  Renewable Energy Sources
  Renewable Energy Sources
  Oil from Coal
  Oil from Coal
  Advisory Council for Energy Conservation
  Advisory Council for Energy Conservation
  Natural Gas (Prices)
  Natural Gas (Prices)
  Natural Gas (Continental Sales)
  Natural Gas (Continental Sales)
  British Gas Corporation (Costs)
  British Gas Corporation (Costs)
  Oil Sales
  Oil Sales
  Oil Exploration and Production Licences
  Oil Exploration and Production Licences
  Oil (Sales to Israel)
  Oil (Sales to Israel)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Nationalised Industry Boards (Women Members)
  Nationalised Industry Boards (Women Members)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Farming (Subsidies)
  Farming (Subsidies)
  Diseases of Fish Act
  Diseases of Fish Act
  Russian Ships (Licences)
  Russian Ships (Licences)
  Fishing Licences
  Fishing Licences
  Agricultural Holdings
  Agricultural Holdings
SOCIAL SERVICES
  National Health Service
  National Health Service
  Doctors (Deputising Services)
  Doctors (Deputising Services)
  National Health Service (Management Costs)
  National Health Service (Management Costs)
  Member's Correspondence
  Member's Correspondence
  Housing Benefit
  Housing Benefit
  Poverty
  Poverty
  Benefit Costs
  Benefit Costs
  Children's Health Services
  Children's Health Services
  Children in Hospital
  Children in Hospital
  Children
  Children
  Family Planning Clinics
  Family Planning Clinics
  Medical Staff (Hours)
  Medical Staff (Hours)
  NHS (Expansion)
  NHS (Expansion)
  Ophthalmic Opticians
  Ophthalmic Opticians
  International Population Conference
  International Population Conference
  NHS (Manpower Statistics)
  NHS (Manpower Statistics)
  NHS Income
  NHS Income
  National Insurance Numbers
  National Insurance Numbers
  Benefits
  Benefits
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  NHS (Salaries)
  NHS (Salaries)
  Community Care
  Community Care
  General Ophthalmic Service (Review)
  General Ophthalmic Service (Review)
  Cremation Documents (Charges)
  Cremation Documents (Charges)
  Health Education Council
  Health Education Council
  Breast Cancer (Screening)
  Breast Cancer (Screening)
  Health Services (Expenditure)
  Health Services (Expenditure)
  Pharmacists' Contracts
  Pharmacists' Contracts
  Pensioners
  Pensioners
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  British Technology Group
  British Technology Group
  Trading Standards Services
  Trading Standards Services
  Loan Guarantee Scheme
  Loan Guarantee Scheme
  Synchrotons
  Synchrotons
  Deep Sea Mining (Temporary Provisions) Act 1981
  Deep Sea Mining (Temporary Provisions) Act 1981
  Spectacle Frames and Lenses
  Spectacle Frames and Lenses
  Israel
  Israel
  Contraceptives
  Contraceptives
DEFENCE
  Polaris Missiles
  Polaris Missiles
  United States Rapid Deployment Force
  United States Rapid Deployment Force
  Cruise Missiles
  Cruise Missiles
  Nuclear Weapons
  Nuclear Weapons
  SSS Company (Recruitment)
  SSS Company (Recruitment)
  Henry Robb Ltd.
  Henry Robb Ltd.
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Lecturers (Salaries)
  Lecturers (Salaries)
  Lip Reading Teachers
  Lip Reading Teachers
  Women Students
  Women Students
  Students (Fee Status)
  Students (Fee Status)
  Teachers
  Teachers
  St. Winifred's Roman Catholic Primary School, Stockport
  St. Winifred's Roman Catholic Primary School, Stockport
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Republic of Ireland (Talks)
  Republic of Ireland (Talks)
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  Stolen Cars
  Stolen Cars
  Rented Housing
  Rented Housing
  Northern Ireland Assembly
  Northern Ireland Assembly
  Security
  Security
  Planning Applications
  Planning Applications
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Select Committees
  Select Committees
WALES
  Diabetic Retinopathy
  Diabetic Retinopathy
  NHS (Waiting Lists)
  NHS (Waiting Lists)
  Heart Attacks (Statistics)
  Heart Attacks (Statistics)
  Kidney Patients
  Kidney Patients
  NHS (Costs)
  NHS (Costs)
  Clinical Depression
  Clinical Depression
  Job Losses
  Job Losses
  Health Education
  Health Education
  Urban Aid
  Urban Aid
  Housing
  Housing
  Housing Improvement Grants
  Housing Improvement Grants
  Job Creation
  Job Creation
  Manufacturing Capacity
  Manufacturing Capacity
  Engagements
  Engagements
  Suicides
  Suicides
SCOTLAND
  Nurses
  Nurses
  Labour Statistics (Glasgow)
  Labour Statistics (Glasgow)
  Police (Scotland) Act 1967
  Police (Scotland) Act 1967
  Industry Act (Grants)
  Industry Act (Grants)
  Exports Orders
  Exports Orders
  Migratory Fish
  Migratory Fish
  Departmental Financial Aid
  Departmental Financial Aid
  Initial Services Ltd. (Redundancies)
  Initial Services Ltd. (Redundancies)
  Home Improvements
  Home Improvements
  Hospitals (Fire Precautions)
  Hospitals (Fire Precautions)
  NHS (Expenditure)
  NHS (Expenditure)
  Forestry Commission
  Forestry Commission
  Police (Plastic Bullets)
  Police (Plastic Bullets)
  Williams Report
  Williams Report
Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Chichester): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

EC Consumer Affairs Council December Meeting
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the first meeting of EEC consumer ministers is to take place on 12th December next and, if so, what items are proposed for the agenda.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): My Lords, a Consumer Affairs Council is planned for 12th December. Items proposed for the agenda are; a general discussion on consumer protection and information policy consideration of proposals for a rapid exchange of information on dangers arising from the use of consumer products; misleading advertising; doorstep selling; product liability and consumer credit.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that most informative reply, which is much the best I have had for a long time. May I ask him whether he is aware that the consumer organisations hope that rapid progress will be made on the matter of the exchange of information concerning dangerous products? They hope that this will prove non-controversial and, if the Minister could convey that to the Ministers concerned, it would be much appreciated.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, we are broadly content with the draft council decision on this matter and hope that the few remaining problems can be speedily resolved.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, will the Minister tell us who will be attending that conference? Who is the Minister responsible for consumer affairs, and will consideration be given to upgrading the Ministry for consumer affairs in the Government, so that in legislation which is now being proposed by the Government we will ensure adequate consumer protection against private monopolies?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I do not think, on reflection, that the noble Lord would question the credentials of my honourable friend who will be representing the United Kingdom. My honourable friend Mr. Fletcher, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Corporate and Consumer Affairs, will
1184
indeed be representing this country and the only other Community member state with a consumer affairs Minister at all is France.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether the fact that France will be present at this conference will probably cause problems, because their idea of what is consumable and our idea of what is consumable differ very considerably? For example, is he aware that the French eat frogs and we do not?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I hope that progress will be made at this consumer council, because it is, in fact, the first such council ever to have been held. But, as the draft directives which I mentioned in the original reply require unanimous agreement if they are to become directives, I do not think that we are going to get that at the council. But, if I may return to my first remark, I hope that there will be real progress at this important council.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, may I ask the Minister, reverting to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, whether he recalls, or whether he can get it from his brief, that some months ago I asked whether the Under-Secretary of State, Mr. Fletcher—and this is not intended as derogating him—could be upgraded to a Minister of State, in order that consumer affairs might have that importance in the eyes of the world?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Baroness's question is not in my brief, but it is always in my mind. I assure the noble Baroness that this matter has been taken note of by the Government.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that in the final analysis the success of this conference will depend on the ultimate success of a summit meeting of the European Community which is to take place next March? What consultations will there be at consumer level in relation to this, particularly on price levels?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, I do not think I would agree with that. These are matters which have arisen from what are called the two consumer action programmes of the European Community. The first one started in 1975 and the second one was formulated in 1981. These are important nuts and bolts discussions, in addition to the general discussion on consumer protection and information policy. I think that these matters can go ahead and I very much hope that they will. I should like to make it crystal clear that the Government are fully in support of a Consumer Affairs Council of this kind, regardless of what may be happening at the council which will be taking place in March of next year.

Fireworks: Sale Regulations
3.6 p.m.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have any intention of tightening up regulations relating to the sale of fireworks in the retail trade to the public.
Lord Belstead: No, my Lords. There is already legislation providing safeguards against the sale of dangerous fireworks, forbidding the sale of fireworks to those under 16, and providing controls over retail outlets. In addition, by voluntary agreement, the supply of fireworks most likely to be dangerous if misused has been phased out; the number of bangers sold has been substantially reduced, as has their explosive content; and the period of general sale around 5th November has been reduced to four weeks.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that very informative and helpful reply. Can he tell the House whether this situation is in any way affected by European regulations?
Lord Belstead: No, my Lords; I am not aware that this is so. But if by any chance I am in error in answering my noble friend, I will write to him immediately.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend can give us some idea of the effect of the legislation to which he has referred in reducing the number of injuries incurred, especially by young people?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, during the 1960s there were well over 2,000 injuries. Last year, 1982, which is the latest year for which I have figures, 626 people attended hospital in England, Wales and Scotland, of which 100 were serious cases.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, is the prohibition of the sale of fireworks to children under the age of 16 as ineffective as the prohibition of the sale of cigarettes to children under the age of 16?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, if there are those under the age of 16 who buy fireworks, it is not for want of trying to prevent this by the Government and also the voluntary bodies, because not only is this in legislation but every year there has been a safety publicity campaign. One of the objects of the campaign has been to remind young people under 16 that they may not buy fireworks and that they must treat fireworks, when they get into their hands, with care.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, while none of us would want to be spoilsports, and all of us appreciate that round about November-time is a happy time for young people, is it not a fact that the time taken of the very valuable services of the various fire brigades throughout the country is largely employed on the night of 5th November in a way which is not most fruitful, and is in some cases dangerous, when there are other fires for other reasons?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I agree, but let us be quite clear about one thing. It is an offence to let off a firework in the street or in a public place. We are
1186
therefore talking about people who, in many cases, are in contravention of the law. But having said that, I really feel, on behalf of the Government, that the law on this has been tied up about as tightly as it can be. I think that the right way forward, in dealing with something which, after all, is a tradition and gives pleasure to thousands, is to keep on trying by voluntary agreement to get home to people that they must treat fireworks with care.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, when the Chinese invented explosives, for two centuries they confined the use of explosives to fireworks? Would we not be better occupied in trying to do the same?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Lord may have a point.

EC Education Grants
3.10 p.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what education grants have been awarded by the EEC to the United Kingdom since June 1979.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords. because of the way in which EC education grants are disbursed, the information is most conveniently given for the academic years August 1979 to July 1984.
Grants have been made tinder the education cooperation programme agreed by EC Education Ministers in 1976 to United Kingdom pilot projects designed to assist the development of national policies in the area of the transition from school to adult life. Over £1·2 million has been received since 1979. The sum of £500,000 has been made available for projects in the United Kingdom on the education of the children of migrant workers.
The Community have also given small grants to British universities under a scheme for the development of joint programmes of study between institutions of higher education in different member states designed to assist student mobility. British institutions participate in 70 per cent. of the programmes and have received about £800,000. About £150,000 has been made available to United Kingdom participants in various EC study visit schemes. In addition, the commission at their own discretion have distributed other small scale grants to various bodies and individuals for studies or other purposes.
Although the education service receives few resources directly from the European social fund, there is substantial indirect funding through participation in schemes sponsored by the Manpower Services Commission.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords. I thank the noble Earl very much for his most interesting Answer. It comes as news to quite a number of people. Too few

1187
people realise that the United Kingdom receives grants. I did not realise that they are so varied. I hope that the) will continue.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for not asking a supplementary question.
Baroness David: My Lords, if I may ask the Minister for a little more information, are there any particular regions of the country which have received most of the benefit from the many grants which he mentioned?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I do not, I am afraid, have that information. Either I can write to the noble Baroness or, if she wishes to put down a Question for Written Answer, I shall be happy to reply.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, can the Minister give an assurance that when funds are received from the EEC in respect of education—as, for example. in the case of migrant workers—an equivalent sum is not deducted from the amounts available through the Department of Education and Science—for example, by a reduction of the money that they would have received under Section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I imagine that is the case; but if I am wrong, I shall write to the noble Lord about it.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, can the Minister give an indication of what proportion of the funds which have been distributed have come to the United Kingdom in the way he has just described? Is he further aware that there is a certain amount of concern in this country about the fact that the money which is available for activities of this kind is not shared out in the way that the United Kingdom would like?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, the United Kingdom participates fully in the EEC's education co-operation programme and receives its full share of the allocations.

Red Deer Commission: Chairman
3.14 p.m.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what qualifications are required for appointment as chairman of the Red Deer Commission.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Gray of Contin): My Lords, no qualifications are prescribed by statute. In practice. the criteria are knowledge and experience relevant to the work of the commission, together with the qualities necessary for the effective and successful discharge of the commission's business.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, that, if I may say so, was a most interesting reply. Is my noble friend
1188
aware that I am given to understand that the chairman-designate of the Red Deer Commission claims to have no special knowledge of red deer? Is my noble friend further aware that the commission claim an equal degree of knowledge of the chairman-designate as he of red deer, that the first they knew about his appointment was when it was announced, and that the chosen person himself only knew about his appointment a week earlier? Would it not be preferable to ensure that people chosen to head these relatively small but nonetheless very important bodies have a respectable amount of experience of the subject matter, and that the boards or commissions concerned have confidence in the experience of their leaders?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend is not suggesting for one moment that the chairman-designate is not of the highest repute and well able to carry out the job which is being entrusted to him as from 1st January. Mr. Mackenzie is a well respected hill sheep breeder. He is thoroughly conversant with the highland hill habitat occupied by deer and, having stalked himself, he will be aware of the need to have regard for the competing interests of farmers, foresters and deer forest owners. I am confident that he will discharge his new duties very well indeed. It may be of moderate advantage that he is in possession of a valid small firearms licence.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, at this juncture may I say to my noble friend that I am not suggesting in any way that the chairman-designate is anything but a person of the highest calibre and integrity. I was merely asking my noble friend about his qualifications and knowledge of red deer.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, only so that we end this Question on a jovial note, may I ask the Minister whether our children and grandchildren might not suggest that one of his qualifications should be to have a red nose?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I find it difficult to respond to the noble Lord. I cannot compete with his wit.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, the Minister is aware that red deer do not belong to anybody; they can be shot on the landowner's land if they are roaming on it. It is much better to have a chairman who is at the receiving end of damage rather than a chairman who provides damage.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, since it was created in 1959 the Red Deer Commission has been singularly fortunate in having a very distinguished group of chairmen, who have all fulfilled extended periods of office. I would take this opportunity to pay a particular tribute to the immediate past chairman, who has given nine valuable years of service and who is widely respected. He is also a farmer. When he became chairman he had no specialist knowledge, but he has proved that this is not a prerequisite for carrying out the job with great efficiency.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he remembers that on a previous occasion a

1189
member of your Lordships' House in a debate on red deer showed that he was exceedingly knowledgeable? He never became chairman of the Royal Commission, but perhaps the Minister will remember that he became a predecessor of his as Minister of State at the Scottish Office.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, one never knows what may lie ahead for Mr. Mackenzie.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, would not my noble friend agree that in the eleventh century William Rufus, of fame in Great Britain, killed red deer in the New Forest? Perhaps the name Rufus might be added to Lord Mishcon's suggestion of a red rose.

NHS Pharmaceutical Prices and Profits
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Glenarthur will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is to be made in another place on National Health Service pharmaceutical prices and profits.

Christmas Recess
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that, subject to the progress of business, the House will rise for the Christmas Recess on Wednesday, 21st December, and return on Monday. 16th January 1984.
The House will sit at 11 a.m. on Wednesday, 21st December.

Televising of House of Lords Proceedings
3.19 p.m.
Lord Soames Lord Soames rose to move to resolve, That this House endorses its decision of 15th June 1966 in favour of the public televising of some of its proceedings for an experimental period and instructs the Sound Broadcasting Committee to consider and report how this decision should be implemented.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. It is a simple Motion, inviting the House to endorse its decision of 1966 in favour of the principle of televising some of its proceedings and to remit the whole question once more to the Sound Broadcasting Committee which, after due consideration, would report back to the House.
I should like first to express my gratitude to my noble friend the Leader of the House for providing Government time in which to have this debate. How right he was so to do seems evident from the gratifyingly large number of your Lordships who have put their names down to participate in the debate. The large number makes it incumbent upon myself, as well as others, to be as brief as possible in our remarks.
After the decision of 1966, with its clear majority in favour, and after much to-ing and fro-ing between the Broadcasting Committee and the House, it was decided some three years later to set television on one side for the time being, for reasons which I shall come to later, and to proceed first only with sound broadcasting. Even that was not introduced until 1978.
In the 17 years which have elapsed since that debate, much has happened to warrant giving further attention to this whole matter. First, many technical advances have been made both in cameras and in lighting. In 1966, colour television was in its infancy: now it is recognised to be the most important and influential medium of communication—and certainly not one to be ignored if we wish attention to be paid by the general public to our business in this House.
Some members of the general public may read Hansard, some more read parliamentary reports in the heavier of the daily editions, and probably more listen to the radio reports. But added together, all those cannot amount to but a small proportion of those who would be likely to watch television extracts of debates which they considered to be of interest, either on a national or on a regional basis. Of course, much of the business of this House would not be seen to be of sufficient public interest to be broadcast, and would clearly not be transmitted. But I do not consider it immodest for any Member of this House to refer to this as a debating Chamber of potentially the highest quality, enriched by an important degree of detachment. It is also a Chamber of great talents, with Members of great distinction and high attainment from almost every walk of our national life.
Largely as a result of that fact, some of our debates are of the highest standard. Clearly, that cannot be applied to all of them—not by any means—but a number are of the highest possible standard. I am in no doubt that provided the business of the House that is transmitted is carefully selected and well edited, under strict ground rules designed to facilitate the imparting of information rather than the knocking or mocking, then (putting it at its very lowest) the televising of this Chamber must do more good than harm. If we think it right that a wide audience should have the opportunity to see and hear something of the contribution which this House makes to our national debates, then it is for us to arrange it—for if we do not, no one else will.
I now come to the point that a large proportion of our fellow citizens who think about these matters are well aware of the importance of, and the need for, a second Chamber. There are many who would wish to see this House reformed in some way or another, with the aim of making it more directly responsible to the people. Indeed, a lot of attention has been given to that aspect in recent years by people of great knowledge and experience; but that is as far as it has gone over quite a long period of time. If the past is any guide, it would seem unlikely that reform of this House is on the political horizon—principally because of the evident difficulty of the necessary degree of agreement being reached, either on the best type of reform or on the powers which a reformed House would need to have. That is to say nothing of the pressures which such a decision would have upon available parliamentary time.
Therefore, it would seem that not only is this the best second Chamber that the country has, but it is also the best second Chamber that it is likely to have, for better or for worse, for as far ahead as we can see. That being so, I hope your Lordships will agree that we should set about to try to make the most of ourselves, as it were; that we should go to some trouble to ensure that the work we do is known about by the public, and that it is thought well of.
That obligation, as I see it, has been reinforced by the growth in recent times of an apparently influential body of political opinion which would seek to abolish this House for good and for all without putting anything in its place. The part which that attitude played in the last general election is still fresh in our minds. While we may well hope that in the future wiser counsels will prevail, he would be a bold man who said that such a proposal will not be slipped into another manifesto at some future election, perhaps well ahead.
The main point I wish to put to your Lordships is that this House, whose powers have been cut to the bone; whose reform looks, to say the least, to be unlikely in the near or medium term; and which has recently been threatened with extinction as a second Chamber, needs to look to its laurels—and to its friends. Who are its friends? Although we are not an elected Chamber, and although we are perhaps seen as something of an anachronism in these times, and although we are in the nature of things on average a rather elderly House, I believe there is a strong body of public opinion which sees a second Chamber as a real necessity and which is therefore in principle well disposed towards this House. I believe that has been reinforced since sound broadcasting of this House was introduced. I believe that the public would like to see us at work, warts and all.
So much for the reasons which lead me to wish for facilities to be provided for the televising of this House. But I do not believe it would be realistic to talk in terms of this House being televised without giving consideration to the situation of the House of Commons. Those of your Lordships who have refreshed your memories by reading in Hansard the debates on this subject in 1966, 1967 and 1969 will have noticed that in the last debate, opened by my noble friend Lord Ferrier, some noble Lords, speaking in a personal capacity, said that it could be embarrassing if either House were to be televised or broadcast without the other. They felt, therefore, that on balance we should keep in line with the House of Commons. That was some 15 years ago. I believe noble Lords will agree that during that time the House of Commons has shown but scant inclination to lead on this matter. If past performance is any guide, if this House were to decide again to wait on a decision from another place we might be waiting for an endlessly long time.
As I have said, much that is relevant has changed since that decision to wait on the House of Commons was taken in the 1960s. It would be my hope that your Lordships will agree that the time has now come for this House to make up its own mind on the merits of its own case—faced, as it is, with its own difficulties and dangers—and to proceed accordingly. All that my Motion desires or suggests is that the matter be
1192
remitted to the Broadcasting Committee, which will consider all relevant matters, both of substance and of detail, and will then report back to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House endorses its decision of 15th June 1966 in favour of the public televising of some of its proceedings for an experimental period and instructs the Sound Broadcasting Committee to consider and report how this decision should be implemented.—(Lord Soames.)
3.30 p.m.
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, I rise to intervene at this stage in the debate to put to your Lordships a few points which the House may wish to bear in mind relevant to my noble friend's Motion. Before doing so, I must make it clear that, speaking only for myself, I strongly support my noble friend's Motion and will vote in favour of it. I should say that I have been a strong supporter of televising Parliament, both this House and another place, since it was mooted in 1966, when I was on the losing side by one vote. On that occasion, if I may say so, I voted with the then Government Chief Whip. At that time it was suggested that very seldom could two Chief Whips have voted in the same Lobby in either House of Parliament and lost. We did, by one vote.
Perhaps because I agree with him, I thought that my noble friend made a very strong case, as he always does. I agreed in particular with what he said—perhaps I can speak only from very short experience—about the wealth of knowledge and experience in the House. It is because of that that I believe your Lordships will wish to consider the value of a wider public appreciating the wealth of experience which this House provides.
However, my purpose in speaking at this stage is to put before your Lordships some considerations which affect the running of the House. On behalf of the Government I am obliged to say only one thing. for which I am relieved. I need state only the obvious; namely, that they would wish to study carefully the public expenditure implications of any scheme for the televising of Parliament. On the general principles with which we are concerned today the Government remain neutral—some of them more neutral than others.
The Motion endorses the decision made by this House on 15th June 1966. That decision led to the setting up of a Select Committee, and in February 1968 to a closed circuit experiment. In March 1969 there was a debate on the results of the experiment, but after that no further action was taken. The principal reason appears to have been an unwillingness to introduce public broadcasting before similar arrangements were made in another place. When public sound broadcasting was introduced on a permanent basis in 1978, it began in both Houses at the same time.
If your Lordships agree to the Motion before us today, the result may well be that a television experiment takes place in this House alone. I am bound to tell your Lordships that my colleagues in another place feel that that is bound to lead to some practical and political problems. Undoubtedly, any decision to

1193
televise your Lordships' House would put pressure on another place to follow suit. It is, I believe, important that we should not act in a way which would make it difficult for those in another place to take their own decisions, in their own time. It may be, therefore, that the best way for this House to proceed, if that is your Lordships' wish, would be, as my noble friend's Motion says, by way of experiment for a limited period only. The House would then be able to look carefully at the results of the experiment before deciding whether to go ahead with any more permanent scheme. That would give those in another place a breathing space in which to consider their own plans, and the experiment in this House might well prove helpful to them in deciding how to go forward.
I would remind your Lordships that there was an interval of nearly three years between the experiment in sound broadcasting in another place in 1975 and the introduction of permanent sound broadcasting in both Houses. Nevertheless, the sound broadcasting of Parliament is now firmly established. With television as well, perhaps your Lordships may think, it is best to make haste slowly, though I am bound to agree with my noble friend when he says that up till now we have not been making haste at all, even slowly.
There are, of course, a number of ways in which an experiment in the televising of our proceedings could be arranged. Recent proposals for televising proceedings in another place have, for example, involved the concept of a parliamentary television unit. Among other things, this would obviously raise important questions of editorial control. Another alternative, which your Lordships might well prefer, would be the so-called "drive-in" scheme. Under such a scheme the broadcasters would install their own cameras whenever they wished to record or to broadcast the proceedings. Either scheme would raise important questions of editorial judgment and selection. My own feeling is that the most practical answer, at least for an experimental period, would probably be a "drive-in" basis, but any such decision would in no way limit the options for the longer term, either in this House or in another place.
Another question on which an experiment could provide valuable experience would be the form of programmes which the broadcasting authorities would be able to provide, and whether the format of such programmes was acceptable to your Lordships. Clearly these are all important matters affecting our proceedings, which the Sound Broadcasting Committee will wish to consider, if your Lordships agree to the Motion this afternoon.
Another example of a problem from the Government's point of view would be Ministerial Statements. If a Ministerial Statement were made in another place and repeated in this House, it might be felt to be inappropriate if only the repetition of the Statement could be televised. That particular problem could be overcome very simply by prohibiting the televising of Ministerial Statements originally made in another place. My Lords, if it were thought that I put that in to please my colleagues in another place, that would be correct.
I have mentioned only a few of the problems which will need to he considered. There are several other matters which will need to be resolved; for example,
1194
the physical accommodation of the equipment and of the staff operating that equipment, the restrictions to be placed on the use of extracts from recordings, the copyright in the recordings, whether an archive copy of some or all of the recordings should be retained in Parliament, and the position with regard to parliamentary privilege. All these points will. I am sure, be given careful consideration by the Sound Broadcasting Committee, if my noble friend's Motion is agreed to. I shall, therefore, say no more about them at this stage.
I look forward to hearing what other noble Lords have to say in this debate. With the leave of the House, I shall seek to reply to them at the end of the debate, and at the same time to state some of my personal views on the general principle.
3.38 p.m.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, I had not made-up my mind to speak in this debate until I found I was put in the honourable place of third on the list, and I am now committed. My reason for wanting to speak was to explain why, having opposed the proposal in 1969, I have come to the view that the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Soames, should be supported. My reason for doing so I shall seek to explain; and I should perhaps go back into history a little, because I am probably one of the last of the Reithian producers appointed to the BBC. along with other colleagues, some of whom have gone rather further, like the late Guy Burgess.
In those days we were not allowed to broadcast anything that was not scripted. We thought with horror of the possibility of having some popular author like J. B. Priestley being asked to broadcast. There was nearly a revolution. On the whole, politicians were people we preferred not to see, and when we did see them they were very reluctant to take our advice.
I support this Motion, but I must make it clear that I do not do so officially on behalf of the Labour Party. We have a free vote, and colleagues will express their own views. Nor do I support it entirely for the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Soames, gave. I do not believe that in the long run it will be possible for your Lordships' House to be broadcast and for the House of Commons not to be broadcast. It really would be such a nonsense and would expose us to a certain amount of laughter, however intelligent we are; though I believe that our debates are rather more orderly than those in another place. However, it would be inconceivable that the first Chamber in our British parliamentary system was not to be broadcast, whereas the House of Lords was.
Nevertheless, your Lordships have had a reputation as sometimes pioneering legislation and other activities which another place has been rather reluctant to tackle because there could be embarrassing party or personal issues which affect a Member of Parliament in his constituency. Noble Lords will remember some of the social legislation which we passed before it was taken up in another place.
It must be said, in fairness, that there are quite serious objections to the broadcasting and televising of Parliament. I remember the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, pointing out that we know one another here, that we do not pay attention to anyone outside

1195
when we are debating, and that we are not particularly aware of the Gallery. We have a degree of understanding and good manners, and our performance is judged by what is seen by people in this House, rather than by what people may or may not see outside.
For a Member in another place sitting for a marginal constituency there could be difficulties. I had a majority of only 16, and I must say that had the proceedings been televised, it would have presented severe problems as to whether I ought to spend all my time appearing in the Commons, to be seen hard at work, when in fact it was desirable that I should not spend my time there but should work on countless other matters. I have always regretted the hostile comments of the press concerning certain Members of Parliament who have not spoken in the Chamber but who have done sterling work in committees which was never recognised by the public. It would be difficult, and I can well understand the other place being hesitant.
On the other hand, as the noble Viscount said, there was an occasion when the other place nearly decided on the issue, and there was a very strange result. Your Lordships will remember that the late Dick Crossman, who usually got things right, did not entirely do so in the latter hours of that debate. It was almost by chance that many years ago the Commons did not vote in favour.
My view is that we ought not to wait any longer. Sooner or later broadcasting and television will come, as it has in other parts of the world. I hope that it will lead to a greater understanding by the public of what actually happens in Parliament. I hope, too, that broadcasting will not be confined just to what happens in the Chamber. but will reflect the work of Members of Parliament or Members of the House of Lords in other respects, in particularly in the very important committee work, which is growing all the time. Indeed, it was Mr. Crossman who was one of the pioneers of the development of committee work in the Commons. In many ways the work in the committees is probably more effective than are the battles on the Floor of the House, which maybe entertaining, and which some people regard as of primary importance. They are of primary importance in terms of our personal liberties. We must bear in mind the ability to bring matters to either House, and for people to speak on them Nonetheless, other work is also important. Therefore, I think that it will be necessary to approach this question with great caution to ensure that we achieve a balance—which is exceedingly difficult to achieve—and maintain it.
I am confirmed in my belief that we should go this way in view of the likely development of cable television. Hitherto there has been a shortage of space. Parliament would be competing against more entertaining activities—though there are times when both Houses can be exceptionally entertaining—to a degree that we would sometimes prefer other people not to see. But with the development of cable television and the prospect of more than one wavelength being available, the situation becomes a great deal easier, provided that it is not to consist merely of selected excerpts from Parliament which
1196
may or may not truly reflect the feeling of Parliament.
One must recognise that other Parliaments, such as the Canadian Parliament, are televised. Certainly one cannot turn on television in America without seeing proceedings in Congress in some form. I do not know enough about the manners in Congress, but I am bound to say that on occasions, the Canadian House of Commons resembles the British House of Commons, except that it is rather noisier because the Canadian Members bang their desks. Even that cannot be very edifying for the listeners. However, in the long run it will not be possible for us to deny to the public the right to see their Parliament at work, whether it be the Lords or the Commons. I believe that if the facilities are available, and if it can be properly done, an experiment of the kind proposed is desirable. We do not have the right to deny it.
I believe that initially it should be an experiment but if it is a success. I should be surprised if the Commons did not follow, bearing in mind that they previously so nearly decided to do so. However, I ask your Lordships to realise that it is a difficult decision for Members of the Commons, and that it will be abundantly necessary to get across to the public what the work of Parliament is about. as they still do not know. Therefore, it is not a straightforward issue, but I have no hesitation in saying, now that 14 years have elapsed, that we should support this Motion, and I propose to vote for it.
3.47 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Soames, for bringing forward his very subtly worded Motion, and for moving it in such persuasive tones. Some noble Lords may have noticed that I had a similar Motion, though less subtly worded, on the Order Paper, but so as to enable the noble Lord, Lord Soames, to move his Motion it was necessary for me to remove mine. When there is a Motion which has behind it the combined weight of the noble Lord. Lord Soames, and the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, obviously it is very wise for me to withdraw my Motion and having heard the noble Lord, Lord Soames, introduce his Motion I am confirmed in that opinion.
I also recognise that this is a very limited proposal. It is not the last word on the matter. Noble Lords who think that we are suddenly opening the floodgates to having the whole place invaded permanently with television cameras should realise that the Motion asks merely for an experiment and suggests only that the Sound Broadcasting Committee should advise on the manner in which the experiment should be conducted. Your Lordships will no doubt have a second, if not a third, bite at the cherry, if any of you find it unpalatable on this occasion.
Having declared something of an interest, perhaps I should also declare something of a responsibility. The noble Viscount referred to the earlier debate, in 1966, in another place, as did the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. As noble Lords have been reminded, the result of that debate was a defeat by one vote. The Motion was in the name of the then Leader of the House, Mr. Richard Crossman. I was in charge of my small party group—it was a small group—and I was consulted at the time by Mr. Jo Grimond, as he then

1197
was, who had just arrived at Heathrow Airport from a visit to Eastern Europe. He asked whether he need attend for the vote. I said that he need not bother and that it would be won very easily. A little later Mr. David Steel asked whether he could absent himself from the vote in order to do a television programme for the BBC. I said that he could, with pleasure. When we lost by one vote I felt in part responsible, so I do hope that I can do something to make amends today.
As I have said, this is a very limited proposal. It seeks merely to undertake an experiment. If noble Lords are inclined, or tempted, to say that we have already had an experiment and to ask why we should need another one, perhaps I may give one or two reasons for it. In my view, the last experiment was an outstanding success. The tapes have been preserved and can be seen by any noble Lords who wish to see them. I thought that the debate which was televised was excellent. It was a debate on sport. Noble Lords whose names were internationally known spoke in that debate. They included Lord Burghley, my noble friend Lord Byers, who had been fleet of foot in representing our nation in the Olympic Games, and Lord Wakefield of Kendal, who for many years dominated the rugby field. We were able to see that, while they were not still fleet of foot, they were extremely fleet of tongue and did very good service. The experiment showed the House to be what it is—a debating chamber of the highest possible quality and one which should be seen more often by others.
Some noble Lords may feel that an experiment is a foot in the door for things to come. So be it. The matter will come back to your Lordships at a later stage if you decide to have the experiment. Noble Lords may also wonder why we should have another experiment. I would say for two reasons. First, the main objections to televising the proceedings in our Chamber in the past always seemed to be precisely the same as those which were advanced against the admission of the press two centuries ago. I think that it was the noble and learned Lord who now sits on the Woolsack who said that televising our debates would reduce the proceedings in the Chamber to the level of a music hall turn. When we had the experiment, all the fears were shown to be ill-founded.
There was one real problem—the obtrusiveness of the mechanics, machinery and personnel necessary for televising. On the occasion of the experiment noble Lords complained about the lighting, the apparatus and other inconveniences. We are now in an entirely different situation. Vast improvements and advances have been made in the technique of television broadcasting. It would now be possible to televise the proceedings of the Chamber without any intrusiveness. There would be no extra lighting or staff needed to move and focus cameras. Remotely operated cameras would be fixed. Frankly, the obtrusiveness of the equipment would be even less than that of the box up there which has been installed for sound broadcasting. I think that after the previous experiment many years ago, an experiment now would show the differences and that such objections are no longer valid.
There is a further reason why we should have another experiment. As the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, and the noble Lord, Lord Soames, have
1198
said, since the last experiment was conducted, the proceedings of both Houses of Parliament are broadcast on sound radio. Both channels now use sound tapes in association with still pictures, cartoons, other visual machinery or other pictures. If we have the sound, why not have the real pictures? On all four television channels about six hours a week are concerned with Parliament. At the end of each debate the main protagonists rush off in taxis either to Broadcasting House or to ITN to give potted versions of the debate. During the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget speech, for years we had a group of people talking about what he was saying. Messengers would come in to say that he had just said this, that or the other. Now at long last we can hear the Budget speech from another place on sound radio. But on television such debates are associated with cartoons and still photographs.
Those are two reasons why we should have a new experiment. First, the rules have changed. The apparatus is now much more simple and less obtrusive than when the previous experiment was conducted. Secondly, we are in a new situation in that we now have sound broadcasting of the proceedings of both Houses. Why not go the whole hog and have our proceedings televised?
It would be wrong for me as a member of the Select Committee to pre-empt the judgment and recommendations of the Select Committee as to the form of an experiment if your Lordships were pleased to pass this Motion. But my personal view is that we should not venture too much and too far into the idea of controls and setting up a House of Lords television unit, perhaps on the assumption that we are better at running television than the professionals. If we trust the broadcasters, we should let them in to do what they do. If we do not trust them, we should not let them in at all. After the experiment, if they televise our proceedings, and if it is done in a way which we do not like, we have the ultimate sanction to say, "That is it. Out you go". But my advice is that if we decide to have television, we should not try to control it too much. Let us have television, warts and all.
I am deeply grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Soames, for introducing this matter. I very much hope that noble Lords will support this simple proposal.
3.55 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Chichester: My Lords, I wish briefly to give support to the Motion from these Benches. I have been interested in how very often at the social gatherings which follow confirmations and similar occasions I am asked about the proceedings of this House. People are very interested when I try to explain how we are a self-regulating body and the atmosphere of courtesy that prevails. If further proceedings of this House could be televised, I am sure that it would do a great deal to help the understanding of the House in the country at large and to remove prejudice and misunderstanding. It is perhaps worth remembering that some proceedings of the House are already televised on the occasion of the State opening of Parliament. It would be an additional advantage for people to be able to see that we do something else besides this great ceremonial occasion—that we are a working body.

1199
May I add just one or two points from the experience of the General Synod of the Church of England, which has had some of its proceedings televised for several years now? As a result of this, may I say first of all that I have not noticed any tendency on the part of members of the General Synod to play to the cameras? I am rather reluctant to think that Members of this House are any less able to resist temptation.
I was particularly interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, said about improvements in techniques. In the General Synod we have found the lights very trying indeed. I am sure that this problem influences the debates both because of the glare that sometimes gets into the eyes of speakers and because of the heat created. We find that it is an enormous relief when the operators decide that a debate has reached a point at which it is no longer of any public interest and switch off the lights. We almost feel then that we can settle down to a proper discussion. Taking account of all that the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, has said, I hope that the Committee will give serious attention to the problem of the lighting. This would suggest that we should have a fairly limited trial period so that we can find out how far the improvements remove this considerable disadvantage.
I should like to give support to the Motion. In view of the long list of speakers, perhaps I may also apologise in advance if I have to leave before the end of the debate.
3.58 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, in asking, as I most certainly do, for your Lordships' indulgence this afternoon, I cannot avoid recalling a similarly painful occasion over 32 years ago when I made a maiden speech in another place. It was a singularly anodyne affair, which I can safely say gave no offence to anyone. It was lit up for a brief moment with the gratification which I felt at the presence of the Prime Minister who was still in his place to hear this important utterance. The Prime Minister at the time was the father-in-law of my noble friend Lord Soames. That brief moment of gratification was soon dispelled when he turned, glared and, concluding that he had seen enough and heard enough, departed. The only other thing that I recall about that occasion was the speed with which the apprehension and alarm which I felt gave way subsequently to the peacefulness of anti-climax. That left me with the conviction that a maiden speech is something one is better without and the sooner you get rid of it the better.
This afternoon I find myself in the unhappy position of being, I think, the first speaker who wishes to express some views aginst the Motion so eloquently moved by my noble friend Lord Soames. I hope that I may be forgiven if I speak of Parliament as a whole. I do so for two reasons: first, I do not believe it realistic to suppose that if one House admits the cameras, the other will not do likewise; and, secondly, my own experience necessarily relates to another place.
On a previous occasion I supported the introduction of sound broadcasting. I believe that I was wrong and I should like very briefly to touch upon my reasons. I fear that where the interests of television and Parlia-
1200
ment come into conflict, it is likely that those of Parliament will, in the long run, be eroded. Television is a thrusting and intrusive medium, and I believe that those who handle it have little difficulty in persuading themselves that their interests should always come first on the grounds that they coincide inevitably with the national interest. Secondly, experience of sound broadcasts in another place leads me to believe that they have done little to enhance the reputation of that House.
Thirdly, there being no suggestion of total coverage, I think that partial coverage presents very real difficulties in the areas of selection, editing and comment. These inevitably will be in the hands not of Parliament but of the medium, and I fear that that will be a source of unease and difficulty to Parliament as a whole. Fourthly, I believe that whatever restrictions may be imposed in the long run are unlikely to endure. Suggestions were made recently in another place that the cameras will be fixed to the wall and will thereby be inhibited from focusing upon what is sensitive and therefore interesting. They will not be permitted to pan out on empty Benches; they will not be able to focus upon sleeping Members or take reaction shots. I most strongly believe that so hobbled and emaciated a version would very soon provoke demands for something more complete and more interesting.
My final reason for opposing this Motion is a real doubt as to how well or how far Parliament and television are likely to prove good for each other—and here I particularly wish to avoid the pitfalls of controversy. There is so much which is informal, confusing and, if I may say so, unexciting in our debates. Not all Acts of Parliament are either sensible or even comprehensible. Not all our debates are lucid and scintillating; the subject matter often enough makes that impossible, but I think we are obliged to ask ourselves the question: how much of that constitutes a diet suitable for television? I fear that there would be a tendency to highlight further those ritual occasions such as the annual budget. Recollections of that occasion—and this is certainly no party point—lead me to think of it as a feast of erroneous diagnoses, wrong forecasts and irrelevant remedies.
To sum up, Parliament is a very strange and unique assembly put together in strange ways. It is one very easy to criticise and to lampoon. It offers, however, a buttress to personal liberty, and an alternative to civil commotion. If now, in order to make itself more interesting and more entertaining, it accepts the yoke of television, I believe it will be putting in jeopardy things of greater importance and more real and lasting worth.
4.7 p.m.
Lord Hill of Luton: My Lords, it is the first time in 20 years in this House that I have had the privilege of following and congratulating a maiden speaker, and I am particularly pleased to do so as he is an old friend from another place whose vigour shown over those years still remains alive within him. Indeed, in wishing for many more contributions from him, I hope that I shall be able to agree with some of them as I hear them.
The noble Lord, Lord Soames, put up what I thought was the most convincing and considered

1201
argument for the experiment with a view to the televising of this House. I propose to be very brief and limit myself to three points. First, the principle of the exposure of Parliament to the public was decided many years ago: it was decided, first, in relation to the printing of Hansard; and, secondly, to the admission of the press to the proceedings of Parliament. What is now proposed is that the television medium, which to some measure has displaced the press as a source of news, should now be admitted. After all, whether we like it or not, the most significant, the most widely listened to and observed news is now from television rather than from the press. Facing that fact, it seems to me inevitably to follow in an open democracy already committed to that full exposure that the door should be open to the medium which is the most effective exposure of information in this country.
Secondly, in the consideration that lies ahead, I hope that it will be accepted that it will not be for this House, or for a group of Members of this House, to determine what is broadcast and what is not broadcast. It must, I suggest, be the media, with their commitment to impartiality, who are responsible for the selection and use of the material provided for them by the proceedings of this House. Anything else would be gravely misunderstood. This is not an exercise in public relations for this House. It is making available, through the medium that is the principal source of news, what happens here to the general public.
My third point is just this. While I agree that it would be very timely for this House to be televised when its continuance and its composition are increasingly open to debate, it makes sense that the public should know something about what goes on in this House through the medium of television, but again not as a public relations exercise. That is not to say that we shall use this development in order to expound our virtues and to underline our qualities. It is that by making available information as to what goes on, the public will be better able to judge and better able to vote on issues concerning the composition and the future of this House.
We are deeply grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Soames, for bringing this matter up again and for dealing with it with such vigour and clarity as he has done today.

NHS Pharmaceutical Prices and Profits
4.12 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement being made in another place by my honourable friend the Minister for Health. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a Statement on the discussion that I and the Secretary of State have been having on behalf of all the United Kingdom Health Ministers with representatives of the pharmaceutical industry on the scope for savings in the NHS drugs bill and other matters of mutual concern.
"Prescription medicines cost the NHS in England about £1,250 million in 1982–83. Drugs account for
1202
about 40 per cent. of the total cost of the family practitioner service and about 10 per cent. of the cost of the NHS as a whole. The pharmaceutical industry's profits from NHS sales are governed by the non-statutory pharmaceutical price regulation scheme which was introduced in its present form in 1978. In the words of the published scheme, it is a key objective that safe and effective medicines should be available on reasonable terms to the NHS, but also that a strong, efficient and profitable pharmaceutical industry should exist in the United Kingdom. The industry's present target profit level was set by the Labour Government in 1978. Like our predecessors, we recognise that there is a major and successful industry providing 67,000 jobs and with a net balance of exports over imports of around £600 million a year.
"However, the present scheme has run unaltered for over five years. A review of the PPRS and its role in relation to the industry and the NHS was announced earlier this year. After extensive discussion with the industry's representatives and having taken account of the tenth report of the Public Accounts Committee published in April, we have decided both to reduce the level of profit from NHS business and the level of sales promotion allowed as an expense under the scheme.
"First, under the scheme, each pharmaceutical company participating in it is assigned a target rate of profit taking account of the circumstances of the individual company, the contribution which it makes or is likely to make to the economy, including foreign earnings, investment, employment or research. We have decided that these targets should be reduced by an average of four percentage points which will represent a saving to the NHS in the United Kingdom of about £40 million a year. We have also decided that the discretion which our department allows in certain cirucmstances when companies exceed their target profit rates should be tightened and related more closely to a company's particular circumstances. Companies will be told what their new targets are very shortly.
"Secondly, the industry will spend about £180 million this year on sales promotion. Some, but not all, of this amount is an allowable expense under the PPRS. Such promotion is funded largely from NHS sales, and we have concluded that the allowable level should be reduced. We propose, first, that companies should be asked to repay to the department a sum equivalent to any sales promotion expenditure which exceeds the level allowed under the scheme; and, second, that the industry limit should be reduced from the present level of 10 per cent. of turnover to 9 per cent. in 1985–86. We estimate that, when fully implemented, these measures should reduce actual expenditure on sales promotion by 25 per cent. but we will review this area again to see if further reduction can be made.
"All measures I have announced will take effect from 1st April next year. In a full year, they will produce savings on the NHS drug bill rising on present estimates from £65 million in 1984–85 to well over £100 million in later years. This compares with the industry's total profit from sales in the

1203
United Kingdom in 1983 of an estimated £200 million. The changes will mean that the price freeze on drugs, introduced in August as part of the £25 million savings agreed then, will continue, with few exceptions, through 1984–85 and beyond. Further-more. the price freeze will be at the level established by the 2½ per cent. cut of August.
"We have also discussed with the industry the problem of parallel importing of drugs. This occurs when an importer takes advantage of exchange rates and low regulated prices of particular drugs in other countries to import or rampart those drugs into this country in competition with the identical or near identical products already marketed here. At present, an exemption order under the Medicines Act is being used by parallel importers, in a way not envisaged when the order was made, to bring into Britain substantial quantities of medicines without a licence.
"Clearly, there are potential health hazards if a drug has not been properly manufactured or stored, or if labels are in a foreign language, or if there is difficulty in tracing a batch of drugs found to be faulty. We are not aware of any actual injury to patients but we propose to guard against that possibility. We are statutorily required to consult on these matters, and we will therefore shortly issue a consultative document on proposals which will ensure that medicines parallel imported for general dispensing must be licensed under the Medicines Act, either in the ordinary way, or. in the case of medicines, also licensed in the European Community, through a modified licence to cover such safety matters as storage, labelling and tracing.
"There remains the question of generic substitution which we have also been considering in the context of the PPRS review, as announced earlier this year. The Greenfield Committee proposed that a pharmacist should substitute an equivalent generic preparation for proprietary medicine unless the prescribing doctor had specifically indicated that this should not be done. The Committee acknowledged that they had not taken account of the wider implications, for example, on the pharmaceutical industry, of their recommendation.
"Consultation on the Greenfield report earlier this year showed professional opinion to be divided on this recommendation, which was only one of 14.It became clear that many general practitioners were concerned that their patients would be supplied with formulations of drugs that their doctors had not prescribed. General practitioners and pharmacists foresaw problems of divided responsibilities for the treatment of patients. The various procedures considered all raised serious practical problems.
"We have therefore decided not to proceed with generic substitution. We do, however, intend to start a new campaign to encourage generic prescribing by doctors. As to the other recommendations of the Greenfield Committee, we have already announced our acceptance of these or referred them to the appropriate educational bodies.
"Finally, there are a number of other matters arising from the review of the PPRS which have still
1204
to be resolved in discussion with the industry. In particular, a study of transfer prices, which are the prices charged by a foreign-based company to its United Kingdom subsidiary, is being conducted by independent consultants, and our Department is undertaking a study of pharmaceutical wholesalers' profit margins.
"In framing these proposals, the Government have sought to achieve a balance between the interests of the NHS as customer and the interests of the industry. We recognise the research achievements of the industry and the contribution it makes to the United Kingdom economy and we want to see it continue to flourish. However, there is an urgent need to contain the drugs bill for the health service, and this we are also determined to achieve. I very much hope that the industry will accept this position as we wish to continue with the price regulation scheme on a non-statutory basis".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, first. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, for repeating this Statement, which is long and complicated. I must congratulate the noble Lord on the way in which he has managed to cope with it, because no Member of this House could say that he could not understand what the noble Lord was saying—or, at least, the words that he was using. But the content, of course, is a different matter. Incidentally, I would point out that, through some technical hitch. I did not get the last section of the Statement. But, never mind; we can deal with that later.
The Statement is in many respects welcome, but I must say that it is a somewhat meagre response to excessive profit-taking by the industry in the past. There is in fact to be no refund of past excessive profits. I welcome the decision to cut sales promotion expenses. I think the Government will appreciate that in the future this will have to be very closely watched all the time.
The decision on generic drug substitution is welcome inasmuch as pharmacists will not face substitution on a doctor's prescription, which could have created serious problems and possible harm to patients. That situation was never "on". Generic prescribing by doctors instead of prescribing brand drugs could effect considerable savings. It is appreciated that one cannot legislate on this. The decision must rest with each doctor, who must have complete responsibility. Can we be assured that the Government's new campaign to encourage doctors will be pressed with the greatest vigour and determination?
Finally, in view of the estimated savings of £65 million in 1984–85 and well over £100 million in later years, will the Government consider the reduction of prescription charges—which have risen excessively under Conservative Administrations in spite of election promises—or, indeed, the avoidance of further cuts in the National Health Service?
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends on these Benches I should like to join with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, in thanking the

1205
noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, for repeating this important Statement. The noble Lord may care to note that our initial response on these Benches would be a cautious welcome to what seems to us, at first hearing at least, to be a very cautious Statement. We take the view that the drug bill is too big and that it should be reduced substantially and speedily. We entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, that the Government are right in doing what they can to discourage excessive expenditure on sales promotion. The noble Lord may care to note that the Government have our entire support on that matter.
Further, as regards generic prescribing we think that perhaps at this stage the Government may be right to proceed by way of persuasion. But we take the view that time alone will show whether the Government's persuasion has been sufficiently persuasive. In the meantime, would the noble Lord agree that it cannot be right that a retail chemist should have to continue to keep in stock some 120 entirely differently named iron preparations, or perhaps getting on for 100 very similar but differently named anti-histamine preparations, merely in order to satisfy the conservative idiosyncrasies of elderly doctors who are resistant to change? Therefore, we would urge the Government to persuade as speedily and as forcefully as they can.
I should like to ask the noble Lord about one other matter. In their anxiety to save money on the drugs bill, will the Government note that there is a waste as regards drugs in other ways? For example, the prescription charges, as at present levied, tend to encourage poly-pharmacy—that is, the mixing up of different ingredients in one tablet or one bottle—which is expensive and wasteful? Secondly, the prescription charges tend to encourage mass prescribing or bulk prescribing by doctors, which can also be very wasteful. On these Benches we shall watch very carefully to see the results of the Government's attempts at persuasion.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am grateful for the general welcome which both noble Lords have given to the Statement. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, asked about the refund of past excessive profits. The PPRS provides for excess profits to be recovered either by rebate or by price reductions. There have been refunds or excessive profits in the past, and, in fact, a cheque for over £1 million was received from one company only yesterday. So I hope that the noble Lord is satisfied on that account.
Both the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, asked about generic prescribing and the need to educate rather than to coerce. I entirely agree with what they say. It is, in fact. largely a matter of re-education for newly-qualified doctors, because newly-qualified doctors leave their medical schools trained to prescribe drugs by their generic names. When they enter general practice, where prescribing by brand names is the more common practice, there is the invevitable tendency to adopt the habit of using the short and easily remembered brand names. We rightly have to convince general practitioners that generic prescribing is effective prescribing, and we must make it as easy as possible for them to do so.
1206
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, asked about reductions in prescription charges. The noble Lord will know that I am not going to he drawn along that particular track tonight. I am sure that if he has any particular points in mind, he will bring them to my attention and I will happily write to him about them.
The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, raised a point about other waste within the retail chemist trade or in the pharmaceutical trade, and waste generally. These are matters that are being considered. What the noble Lord said is very valid indeed, and it is something which the Government will keep under review. The Government will note the comments that the noble Lord has made.
Lord Regatta: My Lords, can my noble friend assure us that as a result of these changes there is no likelihood of any diminution in the very important research which is at present being carried out by many of the pharmaceutical companies?
Lord Glenarthur: Yes, my Lords, I can tell my noble friend that of course the research aspect of the pharmaceutical industry is an important one, and that it will not be affected in the way in which my noble friend fears.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, the Statement which the noble Minister has made this afternoon must be welcome because it enables us now to examine in some detail some of the matters which were rumoured, and to test which are fiction and which are fact. For example, sometimes there have been grotesque figures and sometimes there have been realistic figures of the enormous profits being made in the pharmaceutical industry. The noble Lord has to bear in mind the recommendations that were made by the highest authority of which we can conceive in this democracy—a Royal Commission—and all the facts that they took on hoard just four years ago, when they made their report. That, too, should be examined.
Will the noble Lord please also bear in mind the situaton as regards ordinary people, and not merely the economics of the pharmaceutical industry? In just over four years the public have had to pay prescription charges increased from 20pto £1.40. Also, they are beginning to understand from the doctors themselves that very often—and this is an important point—doctors get samples of drugs which they are told they can administer, but often they do not have a clue what is in them. Therefore, we have seen an increase in what has been described as "the side effects" of drugs, and when the doctor is told of this he says, "Forget it: do not take any more". That was not much comfort in the thalidomide tragedy. That must never be forgotten in the interests both of the ordinary people and of those who are doing an excellent job in the drug and pharmaceutical industry. They make a massive contribution to good health and the maintenance of good health—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Molloy: But the noble Lord should be aware that we must take these matters into consideration as well as the economics of the situation—
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords. I must point out to the noble Lord that it is quite in order to ask questions of a Minister after he has made a Statement, but it is not in order to turn the matter into a general debate.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords. I am bound to say that I am not quite clear where the questions lay in what the noble Lord has just said. However, he attempted to draw me on the question of prescription charges. I think he ought to bear in mind—and I am sure that other noble Lords will as well—that 75 per cent. of all prescriptions are, in fact, exempted from charges anyway, whatever might have happened to the rise in prescription charges over the years.
The noble Lord must bear in mind that there is a balance to be struck here, which I think was brought out in the Statement: that we have to retain and develop a very soundly-based pharmaceutical industry as well as trying to contain the level of charges to the NHS. I am sure that when the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, reads the Statement again, he will understand the points more fully.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord two specific questions. First, on the proposal that,
"companies should be asked to repay to the department a sum equivalent to any sales promotion expenditure which exceeds the level allowed under the scheme",
can the noble Lord give us an assurance that this money will, in fact, go back into the National Health Service budget?—because, as he well knows, his department also has a great number of other responsibilities into which, on the face of it. it might be siphoned off.
Secondly, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, that we cannot legislate on generic prescribing, and I also agree with my noble ally, Lord Winstanley, that it is better to do this by persuasion. However, although generic prescribing was only one of 14 recommendations in the Greenfield Report, it was, in fact, the most important one, and a very simple scheme was advanced in Section 24. I simply want to ask the noble Lord whether he would consider encouraging the introduction of that as a pilot scheme in the area of one or perhaps more family practitioner committees which were prepared to try it out.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, on the second point which the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, has raised, that is something that I should like to look at rather than respond to immediately. On his first question about repayments for sales promotions, yes, the new proposal is that expenditure over limit would be repaid to the department instead of merely being treated as notional profit for assessing price increases and rebates for excessive profits.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I should like to make two short observations. First, to echo the words of my noble friend Lord Winstanley, the implementation of many of the matters referred to in the Statement will require a cautious approach. My second observation is to declare an interest, in that I had the privilege of being a member of the inquiry into the pharmaceutical industry. chaired so ably by my
1208
noble friend Lord Sainsbury, whom I see in his place at the end of this Bench. Therefore, having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, on behalf of the Labour Party. may I presume to say that if his party, when it was in Government, had taken more notice—
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, we are running into great trouble here, As I said earlier to the noble Lord. Lord Molloy, it is quite in order to ask the Minister questions on the Statement that he has made. It is not in order to go into a great debate and start criticising what other noble Lords have said.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, in that case, I do not think that I ought to be drawn on what the noble Lord has said.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, in giving a general and very warm welcome to this Statement, I should like to put two brief questions to my noble friend. First, can my noble friend the Minister say what consultations there have been, or will be, with the ABPI and the other pharmaceutical bodies on the implications of this scheme? Secondly, can he give any estimate as to how many pharmaceutical products are currently imported into this country as opposed to our own home-produced products? Is he aware that, if we can use more home-produced and home-tested products, this Statement would be additionally valuable?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords. I must start by saying that I do not have in front of me the figures in relation to the second part of my noble friend's question, but I shall certainly find out and write to him. As regards consultations with the ABPI, these will continue.

Televising of House of Lords Proceedings
4.35 p.m.
Debate resumed.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, on returning to the television debate after that important Statement, I should like to say that it is, of course, a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, on this subject. I think that the noble Lord may be a little worried because on a previous occasion he was somewhat concerned to find himself in agreement with me. I have to tell him that on this occasion I am in agreement with him, and I think that perhaps both of us had better start worrying.
However, this issue is not one on which we need to divide on party political or even non-party lines. It is an issue as to whether we take the view that we are, as it were, a private organisation whose proceedings must be kept rather to itself and not spread too widely, or, if they are known at all, must be sifted through some other organisation and should not be seen directly by the public. Of course, we have proceeded to the point at which they may be heard.
However, before I go into that, there is a further point on which I find myself in agreement with the

1209
noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, which was when he congratulated the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, on his maiden speech. I am very happy to be the first to congratulate the noble Lord from this side of the House. He and I have shared another Chamber over a period of time. I have heard him speak on a number of occasions, always with clarity. I cannot say that I frequently agree with him, and on this occasion it follows that, as I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, I am unable to agree with the content of the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, much as I admired its delivery. Nevertheless, I am sure that your Lordships will look forward to hearing the noble Lord many times in the future.
As we are being broadcast, the question, therefore, is: should we be televised? I am very much a radio man, and here I had better declare an interest because I have written a radio play which has been broadcast and I have written another one which is to he broadcast next year. But this is an area in which radio is pre-eminent. It is possible to argue that in the radio play there is an art form which is distinct from any other art form. I do not think that the television play has established itself to that extent, because the view can be taken that the television play is perhaps a rather inferior form of cinema. One cannot take any such view about the radio play.
However, where television comes into its own is in the documentary area. When one is trying to present an actual event the radio becomes very much second-rate. Someone has to describe it; it has to be sieved through another person. I am bound to say that much of the sieving which is done in the press by the political correspondents does not strike me as being very competent at all. Here we are debating whether or not we are to rely upon sound alone, and one knows what a wrong impression one can get. I take the view that reliance upon sound alone in our two Chambers has not had a good effect. I think that the clarification and the presentation of the events themselves by the addition of vision will, after a period, be beneficial rather than otherwise.
Let us suppose that the scene is outside a factory gate and one is listening to radio. One hears simple uproar; one gets a version of the event through a reporter, and some of the reporters are certainly very brilliant. But, however brilliant they may be, one gets simply their picture; one gets a more complete understanding if one actually sees what is happening outside the factory gate, sees the people taking part, observes the actions and reactions of the crowd and, if they are concerned, of the police. One has a more accurate picture of what is good or bad. The question really is: do we wish to give the public a clear picture of what goes on? I think we do; I think we have to do so. We have a duty to do so. It is appropriate; and I can see nothing wrong in this Chamber taking the lead on this occasion.
There is one other point. I should like to comment on something that the noble Lord, Lord Hill, said on the question of responsibility. It seems to me that he is right when he says that the responsibility for the day-to-day broadcasting should rest in the hands of the media people themselves. Nevertheless, I think that there ought to be a retrospective control; that the Sound Broadcasting Committee should become a total
1210
broadcasting committee and should, perhaps meeting once a month, have the right to survey what has happened during the previous period and then to indicate to the media people where they think they may have gone wrong without any attempt to exercise any day-to-day control.
We should have the responsibility to exercise a retrospective opinion on what has taken place, and to ask the broadcasting and television authorities to take account of what we have said. It is possible that we might come to the point where we should wish to withdraw the facility. After all, what we are proposing at the moment is only an experiment. I take the view that we have to accept the changes which have taken place in the media. It is our job to present ourselves to the public. The noble Lord, Lord Soames, seemed to present his argument almost as putting a case for this House against the other. That is not a view I share at all. But, in spite of that, and for different reasons—some of which I have tried briefly to place before your Lordships—I shall find myself with the noble Lord, Lord Soames, in supporting his Motion tonight.
4.42 p.m.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I should like to have said to my noble friend Lord Soames, if he were in his place, that regretfully I shall not be here at the end of the debate. I had not counted on it taking quite as long as it has done. I, too, should like to add my congratulations to the noble Lord. Lord Peyton, on his speech, which I thought brought a sense of realism which slightly countered—shall I say?—the easy enthusiasm of some of the earlier speakers.
If we look at ourselves today, we are a public meeting. We look at the Gallery of spectators. In fact, there are not many of them there on the whole. Well, there are a few of them there. We look at Hansard, which is published every day. I wonder how many people in fact ever read Hansard? We have our gatherings reported on the ether, and so far as I know we get about three or four minutes in the morning and about the same amount in the evening. The truth is that we are not very newsworthy. I have great doubts whether indeed the thought that we will present ourselves fully to the public will ever be realised at all.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, that the documentary films are by far the finest produced by the television authorities. Some of them are perfectly beautiful. But are we a documentary? Are we really a colourful documentary which would present a colourful picture? I am afraid I doubt it very much. What is more important to me is how it will affect the work of this House. Will it help, for instance, one of the most important of all committees, the European Committee, which the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies, leads? It is particularly important in view of some of our discussions yesterday. No other country examines so closely the details and problems of the European Community.
Would it affect our Committee stages, which frankly would be incomprehensible without the papers—and sometimes are incomprehensible with them. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, is right: will the television authorities ever want to televise a complete debate? If I may take the noble Lord's speech

1211
yesterday on the Falkland Islands, you could not cut that up very well. It was a complete speech. developed stage by stage. I doubt very much whether that would ever be considered sufficiently newsworthy to do that.
We had this experiment 15 years ago, and I understood very well why we did not continue it. It was quite intolerable. We had cameras in different parts of the Chamber, and the heat from the lighting was intolerable. The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, said that the progress of science had altered all that. Maybe it has. But that leads me to the proposition that we ought to be clear what exactly we are letting ourselves in for.
The result of the televising 15 years ago was unsatisfactory. The interviewers, two distinguished men of great ability, interviewed the speakers, rather like a benevolent schoolmaster putting on his best pupils at the time of the annual gathering, and they made one sentence, or possibly two if they were lucky. But it did not represent in any way the workings of this House. We are not advertising individuals here. We want, if anything, to show how this House works. I doubt very much whether it ever presents the colour which would be necessary or pleasing to the television authorities. I therefore suggest that before coming to a full decision even for a 6 months' period we should have a full demonstration of what exactly is involved.
There have been several suggestions that there could be ground rules. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, said that there ought to be retrospective examination. I do not believe that the television authorities will allow any alteration of their editorship. The only control we will have is when they can do it, and on that I think we should insist. I do not believe that we can exercise any influence in this House on their freedom, which quite reasonably and properly they cherish very greatly. Therefore, we would have to accept fully the way they handle it. I therefore say that we ought first to have a demonstration to see exactly what is involved: and, secondly, we ought to make it clear that we must control when the television photography is to take place.
4.47 p.m.
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe: My Lords, in view of the number of noble Lords who wish to speak this afternoon and this evening, I hope that I shall be able to limit myself in inverse ratio to the number of years I have spent on my gubernatorial duties at the BBC and take only a few minutes of your time. I should preface this, however, by saying that for many years I have believed that the two Houses—this Chamber, and this ancient Parliament—are the centre of our democratic life, and that without them our democracy would soon perish. What happens in this Chamber, in the other House, and in the surrounding Committee rooms, is of immense importance, though at times extremely dull. It is not telegenic. Nevertheless, it ought to be available, and I have said this for many years.
It ought to be available just as Hansard is published in which people can read in full the words that we utter in this House: just as we have much shorter extracts on radio. It sometimes seems to me that we have even
1212
horter extracts in the heavy newspapers, which seem to forget that this particular House exists, particularly if you get a country edition published before 9 p.m. Because of all that, and because, as has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Hill, the centre of news nowadays, from where people get their news, is television and to some extent radio, and not the newspapers, in the same way they should get their idea of the proceedings of Parliament from the televising of this House.
There is another reason why this should be so. Many of us are quite accustomed to appearing before television cameras in studios. I am even more accustomed to metaphorically being the other side of the cameras and concerned with the directors, the presenters and the interviewers. All of us, on whichever side of the camera we are, know very well that this is a very false situation. If the programme is subsequently edited, it is particularly a situation in which you feel unsure that what you aim to get across you are getting across, and in which you are never allowed enough time to say what you want to say, and it is a situation in which people are not on their own home ground. In this and in the other place, noble Lords and Members of Parliament are on their own home ground and nobody, except literally their peers, can say them nay. We have existed for 600 years without a chairman, which must be unique for any assembly. To give the opportunity to the public to see how their legislators conduct themselves is something in which we are lagging sorely behind if we do not do it.
There are no substitutes. Nobody would pretend that party politcal broadcasts, getting as they are nearer and nearer to the brief that is prepared by admirable advertising companies, are a substitute for the proceedings of the House and what is said here.
On all counts, I believe that we should do this, but there are some problems. People talk about experiments and demonstrations of what may happen. The problem is that we cannot have an experiment of what the broadcasters would wish to do in the long run. I will explain why. They would wish to have eight unmanned cameras, cameras which would be remotely controlled, so that there would not be men with great big cameras dotted round the House. Those cameras would take at least 12 months to deliver. Therefore the BBC and ITV cannot demonstrate within the next 12 months what such televising of the House would be like. However, they could do something else: they could produce five manned cameras. I am not pretending that that would not be an intrusion on your Lordships' House. Those cameras would require little if any more light than we have at present. I am not quite sure why the General Synod of the Church of England has to have so much extra light thrown on its proceedings. I will neglect to make the obvious jokes about that. The sensitivity of present cameras is such that little or no extra light would be required.
As I have said, if that were to be done on a permanent basis the cameras would be unmanned. They would be nearly as unobtrusive as the microphones now are, so that there would be a fully realistic impression of the debate.

1213
If your Lordships decide that you wish to have an experiment, it would have to he done on a drive-in basis: that is to say, room would have to be found in our congested yards for the necessary vans, not only for the transmitters but for the video cameras and so on. This is not to say that it should not be done, but it would not he fair to your Lordships to talk about this without describing some of the difficulties which would ensue.
What would we expect from this? We could have cable channels which would transmit continuously. The Home Secretary could decide to take the channels from the 405-line television and allocate these. That is very unlikely. but he could decide to do so and put out a continuous programme as is done elsewhere in the world.
The cost would be considerable. The costs of an experiment would be heavy but not undue—about £50,000 a week, including the salaries of those involved. The cost of permanently televising the House would involve equipment costs of about £3 million for the cameras and their installation and another £500,000 for the video recorders and their installation. I would remind your Lordships that the 1968 experiment was funded by the Government, but was jointly provided by the BBC and the ITA. I have no idea whether your Lordships' committee would have it in mind that the same procedure would he adopted, and the arrangements which would be made would not be at all difficult to organise.
I return to the point that unless we can see as well as hear our proceedings, I do not believe that the public will have a fair idea of what parliamentary democracy is all about.
Lord Home of the Hirsel: My Lords, the noble Lord is talking about the channel lasting all day, as it does in the United Nations in New York, which is much the most satisfactory way of broadcasting an assembly. Is the main objection to that the cost?
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe: My Lords, the cost would be great. I am not sure that the Home Secretary would be willing to give those channels because I imagine that, if the other House was to be televised as well as our own, two channels would be required for this purpose. No doubt the Leader of the House, as a former Home Secretary, will have his own observations to make on this subject. It is perfectly practicable, particularly with the advent of cable. I doubt whether the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, will be able to receive it at his home in Scotland, as I doubt whether cable will ever reach where he lives, but that is neither here nor there. I do not wish to anticipate the Second Reading of a Bill which will be put before us very soon. Nevertheless it is practicable, and that is the issue to be resolved.
4.57 p.m.
Lord Balfour of Inchrye: My Lords, I am glad to be allowed to take part in this debate because on 15th June 1966 I led the opposition to the Motion at that time.
Times change, and I believe that two great changes have taken place since that time. The first is what was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Soames, in the
1214
powerful discourse he gave in supporting the Motion—the technological progress that has been made in presentation and the tremendous growth in the number of viewers compared with 1966.
The second change is one which is likely not to find complete agreement on all sides of your Lordships' House, but it is something which must be said if one feels that way. It is that the estimation of Parliament in the view of the ordinary man in the street and his respect for Parliament have been considerably eroded during the last 15 years. No longer does the ordinary man in the street look to the other place—not this place, for we get far too little publicity as it is—as a body that debates great home and foreign issues dispassionately, reasonably and calmly. It is small wonder that there is that thought in the mind of the man in the street when one considers that statements and views in another place are closely controlled by the lash of the whip. Too often the proceedings descend almost every Question Time into unintelligible uproar which does not gain much respect for the House of Commons from the great listening public. Yet, some 30 or 40 yards down the passage from another place one can find debates conducted in an orderly manner, differences exposed fully but without rancour, and views given, often with authority. One does not find that in another place. If we accept the principle that the electorate has the right to see and hear how they are governed, then I claim that at the present time your Lordships' House can better meet that right than can anywhere else. This is our chance to enable the public to see, and learn, how they are governed.
I sincerely support the noble Lord, Lord Soames, in his view that we should not wait for the House of Commons. I look round here at my old colleagues who were in the House of Commons. The procedures there are very slow, and business is very congested. I hesitate to think how long it would take before the House of Commons would agree, if we do not go forward on our own. We may be an unelected Chamber, but we have become fairly representative of all sections of the public. The present House of Lords structure may be indefensible in theory, but it really works very well in practice; whereas I could cite political views which one can support in theory, but which do not work very well in practice. In the light of the views of a certain political party, our future may be uncertain, but I am reminded of the words of (I think) Mr. Asquith who, in 1911, said:
"The reform of the House of Lords brooks no delay".
There has been a lot of delay since, and I think that there may he a good deal more in the future.
Of course, television has its dangers for both Houses; though I think that the danger is much greater for the other place than it is for here. Let me cite one danger. I have a friend who is a Member of another place. He is not a member of my party, and he holds his seat with a fairly narrow majority. He is very much against television, and I shall tell your Lordships why. He works very hard in another place in the week, and at the weekend he goes up to his constituency and works very hard. He gets into the sleeper and comes down by train on Sunday night. He goes to the House and takes his place on the Bench. There is some debate going on which does not have any particular interest

1215
for him. His eyes close, his head nods, the camera views him. He says, "I would lose my seat". My Lords, that does not apply to your Lordships.
On the other hand, can any noble Lord stand up and say that when in your Lordships' House an able Minister deploys, necessarily at some length, the details of an intricate Bill framed by parliamentary draftsmen in language completely unintelligible to the ordinary person, his eyes have not closed and his head may not have nodded? If any noble Lord will stand up and say that, I shall give way to him in admiration.
That is a danger of presentation—and a very real one—which no doubt will be looked after by the committee, about which the noble Lord reminded us. But that is the detail. The committee can iron out those matters. The big point is that here, in the House of Lords, we have, as a second Chamber, an opportunity to play an enhanced role as one of the Houses of Parliament, to be heard and seen exercising our rights and fulfilling our duties. That is what I want to see, and that is why, personally. I now most earnestly support the Motion moved by my noble friend Lord Soames.
5.8 p.m.
Lord Strauss: My Lords, I am glad to be able to speak in a debate in which the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, has spoken. I used to know him very well in another place, and I always used to admire his contributions, though I seldom agreed with them. I should like to say, first of all, not only that I welcome the noble Lord, but that I think his speech today was more forceful—which is saying a lot—than they usually were in the other place. Secondly, I should like to say that I agreed wholly with the general line of his argument.
Some noble Lords have expressed gratification that an opportunity may have arisen to reverse the decision made in another place some years ago, when that place turned down the proposal to televise the House of Commons. I found that occasion a very satisfactory one, and I shall tell your Lordships why. I arrived almost too late to vote in the debate. Like others, I had been told that the Motion to televise the House of Commons, proposed by Dick Crossman, was bound to be carried; so I didn't bother much about whether or not I should be there. When I arrived a little late, I had literally to push my way into the Lobby. Therefore when the vote was announced by the Clerk I was extremely gratified to find that the Motion had been defeated by one vote. I was delighted that I had been there, and, quite falsely, gave myself the credit for what I considered to be a very satisfactory vote.
I do not believe that the situation has changed much since then, except, of course, technically. In principle the difficulties are the same, and it seems to me that the arguments against televising Parliament are the same today as they were then. Many times in those days there was put forward the argument that in a democratic society the public is entitled to see and hear what its representatives in both Houses of Parliament are doing and saying. I was never able to agree with that argument. The public is entitled to know what is happening, the public can read what is happening. the public on some occasions may be able to get
1216
into the Galleries here. But to be present and to attend I do not consider to be an entitlement which every member of a democratic society can claim—any more than he can claim an entitlement to attend the Law Courts. The Law Courts must be open to the public, and anybody must be entitled to go and listen to the proceedings there. However, they are fully reported, as are the proceedings of the two Houses of Parliament.
What happens in these Houses is known to all the people who want to know about it. It is reported in all the papers, there are sound broadcasts and televised discussions, and there are party political broadcasts which I believe put people off politics, rather than attract them to them. Therefore people who are interested in politics today know what is happening. They are able to understand, if they care to read about them, what are the background factors that develop before a Bill is presented to, or passed by, this House.
Would the public be better informed, would it understand Parliament better, would it respect Parliament better, if it saw and heard all the activities that went on, either before a Bill came to the House or during the general procedures of the House? Most of the procedures of the House, important as they are, are very boring. Moreover, being largely concerned with legal affairs, they really do not give any excitement to a viewer or enable him to understand better what is happening here. I do not think that the argument of entitlement to come to either House is really important, or the argument that it will be a revelation to the public if it comes here and finds out how we do things.
What is important to the public is what we do, and the public is able to understand, to learn and to read the arguments advanced by Ministers and by the Opposition about those things which are proposed. Then the public, knowing what is happening, what the facts are, what the propositions are which Parliament has decided or is going to decide, can take action by bringing pressure on its Members of Parliament or, if necessary, on Members of the House of Lords, and can vote at the next election in the way it thinks is right. So I believe that the argument about entitlement is a false one.
The question is really: will either House of Parliament be more highly regarded and be more influential in our society if all our proceedings are put on television? I do not believe that it will. I cannot believe that it will, We have had the small experience of Questions in the Commons being broadcast and my friends and acquaintances, as well as myself, deplore the damage that has been done to the parliamentary image by those broadcasts on so many occasions, with the angry roar, the bad manners and so on. I do not think it is desirable. I know that that would not happen in your Lordships' House. We behave in a more gentlemanly way and we do not have these excitements, outbursts of temper and so on, which are bringing Parliament into such ill repute.
But in considering this Motion, I am not really concerned with this House. It has been urged over and over again—and it was urged on television at midday today—that the passage of this Motion today will mean it is more likely that the Commons will have to pass a similar Motion, because it would obviously seem ridiculous to everyone if a situation arose in

1217
which the affairs of the unelected House were televised for everybody to see and hear, and the elected House, which is the important House where major things happen and important Questions are asked, were not televised. Therefore, the argument and the pressure for televising the proceedings in the House of Commons, if we passed this Motion today, would be immense and might be irresistible.
It is for those reasons that I hope that this Motion will not be passed. If it affected only the Lords, I would say, "That is fine. If people really want to see what we are doing here and listen to the very fine speeches which are made, and the arguments which are put forward, they are welcome". But that is not the issue which we are discussing today. We are considering whether the major House in Parliament should be televised, with the effect that that is likely to have on the image of Parliament as a whole.
My view is that the present situation—I am conservative about this, if nothing else—of televising certain aspects of Parliament, such as the ceremonial and other activities which take place, in order to bring politics into people's homes, is wholly desirable. But I am very frightened at the idea that they should he enlarged and become progressively acceptable and demanded by the public. If that happened, the standing of Parliament would not improve; it would go down.
A regrettable fact is that, so far as one can judge by figures, the interest in the Commons has diminished over the past 10 or 15 years. Without exception, the percentage of voters who bother to go to the polls at each election drops. That can only mean that people consider the Commons less important in their lives, or in the life of the country, than they did before, and I cannot believe that televising both Houses would have any salutary effect.
The reason is quite simple. The Commons consists of public representatives who depend on the votes of their constituencies and I believe—however noble they may be, however little they may want to do it—that when Members of the Commons get up to speak they are bound to have in mind the fact that they are speaking not to their colleagues in the House, and trying to persuade them of the correctness of their views, but speaking to the public. The whole atmosphere, tenor and climate of the debate changes—and in my view for the worse.
The situation would be particularly grave during the months before an election when Members get up to speak. I guarantee that there would be far more demand to speak in those pre-election months than normally, because every speaker in the House would hope that at least some of his constituents would be listening to him. So, again, for that reason the tenor, the general feel, the atmosphere of the debate and the great value of the debate in the Commons would suffer.
Therefore, I say—I have frequently been in a small minority and I may be again tonight—that, on balance, in the interests of parliamentary democracy we have gone far enough. It would be unwise to introduce further television into this House, and certainly into the other House, and I will therefore oppose the Motion.
5.17 p.m.
Lord Windlesham: My Lords, I start with a declaration of non-interest, in that I am no longer active in television, although I was for many years, including at the time that the original Motion which has been brought before us again by my noble friend Lord Soames today was debated in June 1966. I voted for that Motion 17 years ago and I shall vote for this Motion tonight, if the House divides.
The debate has continued sporadically ever since over a lengthy period of years, but I want to argue that the situation is no longer the same as it was in 1966. The main new factor has been the sound broadcasting of the proceedings of both Houses of Parliament over the last five years, having being introduced in April 1978. Not much has been said in the debate so far this afternoon about the impact of sound broadcasting on Parliament. Some speakers have referred to it in passing. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, more than any other speaker, dwelt on the effect of radio and he described its shortcomings as a result of its one-dimensional quality.
But to me, the real significance of the broadcasting on radio of selected extracts from the proceedings of both Houses is that it has answered some of the questions which underlay the doubts expressed in the debates in the 1960s, several of which have been rehearsed once again today, not least by the noble Lord, Lord Strauss, who has just spoken.
Two of the principal objections that have been consistently put forward are: first, who is to edit, who is to select the contributions that are actually chosen for broadcasting to the public? Secondly, there is the fear that speakers will play up in some way to the microphone or to the camera, thus altering for the worse the deliberative nature of parliamentary debates. The answer provided by radio to the first question is that, as in any other factual broadcast, it is only the broadcasting organisation itself, through its established editorial procedures, which makes the selection. The noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, devoted part of his speech to this proposition. The considerations which are brought to bear are those of topicality and relative news value, backed up by the requirements of political balance and the network of understandings which have grown up over many years. These are contained within the general framework of the accountability under which the broadcasting organisations operate. This was always the best solution and greatly to be preferred to the only other alternative put forward: that Parliament should set up for itself some kind of selection or editorial process. That would have been undesirable on grounds of principle.
We are speaking not of good publicity for Parliament—something which, incidentally, every institution craves. We are speaking about access for the instruments of a free press, which is a very different matter. In any event, it would be quite impracticable to suppose that any parliamentary committee could hope to reach agreement on matters so sensitive and delicate which raise personal considerations as well as party advantage. So the problem of selection has now been resolved, not over a short experimental period, but over a period of five years of continuous practice

1219
in both Houses of Parliament, whereby extracts selected by the broadcasters have been broadcast by independent radio and on the radio channels of the BBC.
The second question is whether the presence of radio has altered the nature of parliamentary proceedings. It is hard to say whether or not this has happened. As the noble Lord, Lord Strauss, has just stated, some Members of the House of Commons regret the broadcasting of the noisy, rowdy proceedings at Question Time. But the House of Commons has always been a very rowdy, noisy place, and that is reflected by the broadcasts on radio. Nevertheless, at the same time there is value and merit in such broadcasts. There is. moreover, the fact that at the time of the debates on the Falklands Islands crisis most radio stations devoted long periods of time to the continuous broadcasting of the debates on the Floor of the House of Commons. That was a notable public service, which was in the interests of a democratic society.
We have just heard an authoritative speech from the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe, who until last year was the chairman of the governors of the BBC. He spoke about some of the cost considerations and described the technological improvements. He referred to the fact that over the last 17 years technology has, naturally, moved on. The level of lighting required is now less than it was; the cameras are less bulky and less obtrusive. These are considerations which we need to bear in mind.
Since I referred earlier to the broadcasting of the debates on the Falklands Islands crisis, I should also like to mention that one of my noble friends on this side of the House, who is a Member of the European Parliament. has reminded me that only last month the debate in the European Parliament on the deployment of cruise and Pershing missiles in Europe was broadcast live on one of the West German networks for a continuous period of three hours, such was the intensity of interest in West Germany in the issue.
The same has been true on occasion regarding the proceedings of the General Assembly and the Security Council of the United Nations. Almost since their inception their debates have been made available for broadcasting. That is also now the case with debates in the House of Representatives in the United States, and in about 23 other parliamentary assemblies in different parts of the world. In each of them people have grown accustomed to the presence of cameras, as we in this Chamber have grown accustomed to the presence of microphones.
Those of your Lordships who took part in discussions as to whether the annual party conferences should be televised will remember that exactly this argument was raised then. There was doubt about whether or not speakers would play up to the cameras. But if it were now to be suggested, as from time to time it is, that the broadcasters should remove their cameras or reduce their coverage, the protests from the party managers would be absolutely automatic: it would be said that such a thing would be unthinkable and against the interests of the parties.
1220
The reason why it cannot be claimed that the presence of cameras and microphones has altered the nature of party conferences and other parliamentary assemblies is that an immediate, live audience is much more compelling for a speaker than the knowledge that some part of his speech may or may not be broadcast. If it is the broadcaster who makes the selection, the speaker has no control over whether or not his speech is broadcast. That is another reason why it would be folly for any speaker to try and play up in some way to an indirect audience out of sight, rather than addressing the people in front of him. After some years of experience in this field, my own observation is that the most effective speeches in the place where they are delivered are those which are most effective when they are broadcast.
Acceptance of the sound broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings has, in my opinion, removed the last remaining arguments of principle against the televising of Parliament. There is no longer any case to be made out for excluding Parliament from coverage by the most extensive medium of communication known to modern society. Television may or may not be the most powerful medium of mass communication, but nobody can question that it is the most extensive. The programmes on the national networks of the BBC and independent television are available to virtually the whole of the population in this country. In a democratic society, the viewers are the same people as the voters and it can only be to the advantage of those viewers to see how their legislature is performing its duties and to hear the arguments and the counter-arguments rehearsed in debate in Parliament.
To concentrate on our own proceedings, we in this House have nothing to fear from television. We may lack some of the excitement and drama of another place, but we can make up for it by the expert knowledge, independence of mind and seriousness of intent which lies behind the speeches which are made on almost all, if not all, occasions. The fact that Members of your Lordships' House are generally courteous towards each other as well as knowledgeable of their subject is likely to add to the credit and the standing of the House. I share the view of my noble friend Lord Soames who said, in opening the debate, that at a time when the value of a second Chamber is questioned by some it can only be to the advantage of this House that its proceedings should be seen from time to time by the public.
The last remaining question upon which I should like to touch is the crucially important one referred to in his speech by the noble Lord, Lord Strauss,and by the opener of the debate, my noble friend Lord Soames: whether or not this House should move in step with the House of Commons. We do control our own procedure, and we have jealously preserved the right to do so. Sometimes this results in our doing what we believe to be right at the time that we think we should do it. I have in mind the establishment of the European committees in 1973, well in advance of the House of Commons and not altogether with the enthusiastic support of the Government of the day. Who can doubt that the inauguration of those committees was a great step forward and one which added to the stature of this House? Sometimes we

1221
believe it to be right to move in step with the House of Commons, as happened over the introduction of radio broadcasting.
The admission of members of the public and members of the press was of course a matter of contention in Parliament for centuries; but I wonder how many of your Lordships are aware that it was the House of Lords which first made formal provision for access by the press? I have looked up the record—or rather, the excellent research staff in your Lordships' Library have done so for me—and it is interesting to note that the House of Lords was the first to provide specific accommodation for the public—but more specially, for the press. The first Press Gallery was opened in the House of Lords on 15th October 1831. As the third Lord Holland observed in his diaries,
"Reporters, ladies, Foreign Ministers, and people were for the first time admitted to a gallery allotted exclusively for that purpose in the House of Lords".
It was only after the fire of 1834, when the House of Commons was accommodated temporarily in the old House of Lords Chamber, that the precedent set by the House of Lords was adopted. The Press Gallery in the House of Commons was first opened on 9th February 1835—four years later. If history repeats itself—as well it might—it would be for the benefit of Parliament as a whole.
5.31 p.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, may I first sincerely congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, upon entering this House. I have had the great pleasure of debating with him in another place—sometimes agreeing and sometimes disagreeing. I hope that in the not too distant future we shall be able to check up on one another, by watching the way in which we deliver our speeches and listening acutely to what the other has said. through the medium of television.
It seems to me that both Houses are groping very cautiously—with extreme caution at some times—towards taking advantage of something which the majority of people want to see. When it is asked whether the majority of people in this country are interested in politics, the answer must be that it seems they are at the most crucial time—when they are electing a new Government—because we have the highest voting percentage in the world. In the United States they are lucky if 50 per cent. of the electorate vote. We think we are doing pretty badly if we achieve a figure of only 73 or 74 per cent. I trust we shall hear no more about the people of this country being not particularly interested in politics. That is usually the argument of those amazing politicians who would try to take the politics out of politics. The same kind of argument will be made this evening.
Ever since Aneurin Bevan suggested, in his speech on the Humble Address on 3rd November 1959, that we had to consider this matter and move towards it, there have been massive debates both in and outside Parliament. In true British style, we are moving very slowly towards achieving something which we know full well we should have grasped years ago. By our failure to allow the televising of Parliament, we have allowed a much more sinister development to grow; the power of the man or woman who is not interested in entering the thralldom and cut and thrust of politics
1222
but who wants to become a household name on television or radio by interviewing on the subject of politics—but who has never voted for any issue which affects this nation, great or small. That is something we might he able to reduce. It has to go on—of course it has—but if this House can be televised we shall have shown an example to another place. They have debated it often enough, and they have rejected it very narrowly. They are to debate the matter again shortly, and tonight I hope that we shall show them a good example.
At one time, I understand, people were not allowed to listen to the House of Commons or to this Chamber. That situation has gradually changed. They were then not permitted to hear debates, other than by being present in the House, on the radio. That always seemed to me to be a crass absurdity, when they were able to read the sometimes most appallingly biased views of this nation's so-called free press, which on many occasions have caused in me the possibility of wishing to vomit. Actually to listen to what was being said was looked upon as being a gross abuse of Parliamentary practice. The same kind of argument was made when Hansard was first proposed. Every one was shocked. Most people said that it could not happen, but within years it was happening.
I have been looking at what happens in other countries which do not enjoy our great history. I discovered that many countries have already taken good advantage of exposing their democratic Chambers to the general public. It warmed my heart to learn that that was happening in West Germany. I am old enough to remember when it was only through the Pathé News Gazette that we could see the lunatic Hitler at the Nuremberg Rallies: we could see nothing else. We did not even know that the Reichstag existed until it was burnt down. Now, the West Germans have moved ahead of us in allowing their people to see how their respective Chambers operate. I believe that we should do the same—not just because they and the Norwegians have done that, but because we should then be able to show an example of how to do it even better than they can. I do not say that in any arrogant way but, in my view, if we are not always the first innovators, then something we do very well is to improve upon that which has been done before.
I will refer now to a vitally important point that was introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton. He quite rightly said that in the case of anything we wished to say—and this could be for an experimental purpose—there should not be too much power vested in a group of Peers in this House. I agree with that point of view. I am also vehemently opposed to vesting enormous power in the hands of one employee of the BBC. We must, in a typically British way, find something between the two. If I may say so, I would only exclude from having anything to do with the views of how to improve the televising of Parliament the Members of both Front Benches and of the Whips' Offices. It is too serious a matter to leave to either Governments or alternative Governments or to their lashers of discipline. I do not think it would be impossible for the Back Benches to elect their own representatives to discuss sensibly and intelligently with the BBC how televising should be done.

1223
Another point I wish to raise was mentioned quite forcefully to me just after this debate started, by a colleague whom I met in the Ave Lobby. He said to me. "Of course, you will be wanting to have the House televised!"—as if that were some terrible offence. I acknowledge that I support the proposal, but I hope that I shall never be brought to order on the grounds of trying to make a speech from the Throne.
When it is argued, as it was in another place, that we cannot allow cameras into the Chamber because a few Members will "hog" them, that implies they will be controlling the broadcast—and I do not believe that will happen. The same argument was made when radio broadcasting was introduced in another place. Unfortunately, there is one serious criticism to be made of the BBC—and this will put me in jeopardy if the cameras ever come in here. But this criticism has to be made. I find it wholly distasteful that, whenever another place or this Chamber is broadcast, it is always Prime Minister's Question Time or a debate when there is quite naturally a great deal of excitement, anger, pathos, call it what you may.
As has already been said, this is nothing new in either of these Chambers to anyone who has read and studied the history of our Parliament. My particular view was, how could a number of the millions of ordinary people one day have the right to come here? We recognised one thing. or our forefathers recognised one thing. namely, that if we were to get ordinary working people in the House of Commons it was fundamental that they would have to be paid a salary. They would not be able to do it otherwise. They could not come from Glasgow, Yorkshire or South Wales for four or five days a week to the House of Commons without being able to maintain their families. That was looked on as something appalling, but it became a reality.
The same applied to many other things: allowing the press in the Chambers, allowing people to come into the Chambers, even, begrudgingly; sound broadcasting, which had to be fought for. We are fighting for this Motion now. I hope we shall win. I hope that Lord Soames's Motion will be passed. I ask the House to realise that it is for an experimental period. We ought to have the courage to expose ourselves at least to an experiment in democracy. I believe we shall be proud of ourselves when we can show to the rest of the world how one Chamber of the world's greatest democracy functions, to the benefit not only of the people of these islands but I believe to that of the peoples of the world as well.
5.42 p.m.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, considering the connection that I had with the original experiment here, the Select Committee and the debate that followed it, I gather that some Peers took the view that I was sure to support today the televising of the House of Lords. This is so, but not altogether so, because my concernover a quarter of a century has been to facilitate and improve the reporting of Parliament's proceedings to the people by the media, whether by the press, sound broadcasting or television. If what we are discussing today is a contribution to that end, then I am in favour of it.
1224
It would be easy to dig over, as it were, the ground which we cultivated 15 or more years ago. However, the results are there for all too see, in Hansard and in the volumes of reports of the Select Committee and the representations made to the Select Committee by various units. As other noble Lords have said, the passing years have brought about significant changes in conditions and in the situation; so we must look to the future, not to the past. There have been technical changes, as the noble Lord, Lord Howard, mentioned, in terms of photography, both lighting and recording. My noble friend Lord Selkirk referred to the heat, and so on, during the experiment that we had. Those days are over.
What is more, there is now a multiplicity of channels, cable television and the like. Nobody has mentioned video. In thumbing over some of the papers of years ago I see that one noble Lord contended that the evening papers in future will be videoed and that the video will be an important article in circulating information about news and Parliament. How is it going to affect Hansard? All these things will come out in the wash. Fleet Street is being dismantled by the trades unions. The tabloids take no regular part in the day-to-day politics.
Although sound radio retains its very important position—in saying that I confirm very much what my noble friend Lord Windlesham said—nevertheless the box is becoming more and more important in our complex civilisation. It is as important as the telephone or the water closet. Indeed, whether we like it or not, what the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said on the BBC "Today" programme this morning—namely, that the time is bound to come when Parliament is going to be televised—is right. It is just a question of time, as I think my noble friend Lord Peyton said, and as the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, said. The broadcast is now a definite factor in any system of parliamentary democracy. As Alistair Cooke said not so long ago,
"Television is today the conscience of the civilised world".
One political development in our domestic affairs has been mentioned and the importance of it stressed quite properly. That is the introduction of sound broadcasting of proceedings. This is a step in the direction we all want to go. Sound recordings form part not only of programmes such as "Today" and "Yesterday in Parliament", but they appear in "The Week in Westminster", and over and over again their purpose is served. Of course, as your Lordships are aware, the BBC have a specific obligation to report daily on the radio. However, I wonder whether our Sound Broadcasting Committee, as it is entitled, is, in the terms of this Motion, the best authority to tackle the enhanced remit which the Motion postulates. This point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, and by Lord Hill in some measure. Is it the right medium to be our adviser on the subject?
I say this because the BBC, far from enhancing their coverage of Parliament with the passage of time, have done the reverse. They have quite out-manoeuvred us, which they should not have been allowed to do. I refer to their retaining "Today in Parliament" for half-an-hour at 11.30 at night—and in doing so they comply unquestionably with the letter of their obligation—but with 150,000 listeners! However, presumably because

1225
of their quite unnecessary obsession with ratings, they have not only cut "Yesterday in Parliament", which is heard by something like 2 million listeners—cut it down to a quarter of an hour—but broadcast in that programme pre-digested versions by political correspondents at a peak time, 8.35 in the morning. I am not saying that their digestion is not very good. but it is not a report of Parliament, which it should be in my view.
An example of what I mean occurred the other day. The evening programmes carried an excellent report, 15 minutes or more, of an important debate on the National Health Service. Next morning they skipped the debate altogether; it was not even mentioned as having taken place. There is something wrong there. I am not complaining about the share they give to this House; I think that is just about right and we do get a fair crack of the whip. But I contend that as time goes on the television authorities ought to be put under the same sort of obligation which now lies on the BBC for radio. This has been touched on by one or two noble Lords who have spoken without specifically supporting the idea. I am reminded of a remark, which I looked up recently, by my noble friend Lord Birdwood who said in a debate that the newsworthiness and the importance of a debate were not necessarily the same thing. That is a compact way of saying what I think, and which has obliquely been mentioned several times in today's debate.
My noble friend Lord Selkirk, may I respectfully point out, was wrong in saying how hot it was likely to be. That has been corrected by the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe. No experiment would he adopted by the House, or its committee, unless it was with the latest possible equipment. By the way, my noble friend Lord Selkirk asked whether anyone read the House of Lords' Hansard. In fact, the sales of the House of Lords' Hansard are more than those for the House of Commons.
Another problem that persists is that of parliamentary privilege. This was touched upon by the noble Lord. Lord Hill of Luton. In one of the submissions of the record the ITA said:
"The Authority considers that if Parliamentary proceedings are to be allowed it would be vital to introduce specific legislation to protect the broadcasters".
That is one of the loose ends still to be tied up. Another matter mentioned by many noble Lords, which I do not propose to refer to, is whether we would be out of step by going ahead of the Commons.
Speaking of the other place, my mind goes back to 1971, or thereabouts, when my noble friend Lord Whitelaw was Leader of the House in another place. It was possible that they had in mind to adopt televising their proceedings but they were inclined to hesitate because of this problem of privilege. I remember suggesting to my noble friend then that it might be a good idea to have a temporary screen in Westminster Hall on which could be shown, on a closed circuit, the proceedings in progress so that some of the patient folk who come to visit the Galleries can follow what is going on before they find their way upstairs.
Lord Soames: My Lords, may I interrupt my noble friend? A great deal of the most interesting matters that he is covering will, we hope, be considered by the
1226
Committee. What we are about today is trying to reach a decision on principle as to whether or not we should go ahead.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, I entirely agree, and I am coming to my final point. Be that as it may, I return to the words with which I began: namely, that my concern over the years has been to improve the reporting of Parliament to the people. This Motion would he a small step in the right direction. That is why I support it. My heart goes out to the folk who stand in the street and sit in rows in St. Stephen's Hall waiting for the chance to get into the Gallery.
It is clear that my noble friend's Motion is no simple thing. If I have spoken too long it is because it is worth going over the difficulties that persist. We must face them. I cannot see that a continuous programme could be broadcast. Who is going to edit it? What about Scotland? There is much we can say. Nevertheless, I support the Motion and I wish God-speed to all who strive to implement it.
5.55 p.m.
The Marquess of Tweeddale: My Lords, I oppose the Motion but most of the points that I intended to make have already been made very well by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, on the one hand, and the noble Lord, Lord Strauss, on the other. Therefore, I shall be brief.
My first point is that if we have cameras here on an experimental basis I think we can certainly count on having them for good. That is as clear as daylight. There is something unstoppable about television in present-day society, whether it is a question of the number of sets or the number of cameras. Secondly, I oppose the Motion because I do not think there is any necessity to have cameras in the Chamber, any more than there is any necessity to have cameras at an orchestral concert. What really matters here is what is said, not what is seen. Although the public have an undoubted right to know what is happening here, they do not necesarily have any right to know which noble Lord is on his seat, who is yawning, or even who may he asleep at any particular time. Moreover, I do not think that cameras in the Chamber are desirable because of the nature of the Chamber and the nature of television.
As has been pointed out, we do not address the nation in this House, nor even someone who may he held to represent thenation—I refer to the Speaker of the House of Commons—but each other. The atmosphere in this Chamber, as visitors often point out, although in its way very imposing, is surprisingly intimate. I am afraid that the atmosphere of what one might call gentlemanly intimacy is not likely to survive the introduction of cameras. The result of bringing cameras into the Chamber would be an enlivening of the proceedings, but I do not think that that would amount to an improvement in the standard or quality of debates.
Indeed, I can think of few things that have been improved by being televised. Television is essentially a very bland medium. It is capable of bemusing the watcher but it has difficulty in really interesting or involving the viewer. For this reason it is more or less inevitable that edited broadcasting of the proceedings

1227
here would be biased heavily in favour of the sensational and the ephemeral rather than towards the substance of what goes on. The television picture of the House at work is likely to be very distorted. I believe that more should be heard of this Chamber on the wireless, but I do not believe that there is any necessity for this Chamber to be seen.
Lord O'Neill of the Maine: My Lords, I have great pleasure in supporting the Motion and I hope it will be passed with a large majority. I recently had the good fortune to attend the Assemblée Nationale in Paris. I was surprised to find that I was sitting next to a television camera. It was completely silent, not a sound came from it. There did not seem to be any extra lighting in the Chamber and there was certainly no extra heat. It is therefore obvious that these things can be arranged. The Prime Minister, M. Mauroy, opened the debate and the camera focused on him as he spoke for nearly one hour.
The next day the debate was on the front page of Le Monde so obviously it was considered to be an important foreign affairs debate, as it was. However, I was surprised and rather shocked by the fact that there were only about 100 deputies in the House out of a total of 485. An important debate like that in either of our Chambers would produce a packed audience. I asked about this and was told that it was perfectly normal. The reason that I mention it is that it shows that cameras do not drive people into the Chamber in the hope of being televised.
Like many other noble Lords, I think that on the whole the BBC does a very good job. However, I wish that it had not shoved "Yesterday in Parliament" into the "Today" show on Radio 4. The noble Lord, Lord Ferrier. touched on this to some extent. I think that it was much better before the BBC did that. I hope that it will give consideration to returning it to its previous position. I know that that has nothing to do with television but it is an important point.
This week in your Lordships' House we had one of the most important debates in Parliament on the Falklands. What struck me most was the remark that the noble Lord, Lord Buxton of Alsa, made in introducing the Motion. He indicated that the war in the Falklands was caused in 1967 when officials indicated that we should probably be prepared to cede sovereignty. To my mind, that was the most important part of the debate. The next morning I listened with interest to "Yesterday in Parliament" but there was not one word about it. It is a matter that would have been of great interest to the British public.
I think that television when it is working might avoid things like that, especially if one day we have a television channel devoted to this Chamber. From what the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe, has told us, the cameras will not start whirring tomorrow, but I hope that this Motion will he passed so that the arrangements can he put in train.
6.2 p.m.
Baroness Gaitskell: My Lords, I wish to make a very short speech. I am entirely in favour of the words of this Motion. It is an extraordinarily cautious statement. Let us consider the wording. The debate is
1228
about, "televising some" of the proceedings of this House, "for an experimental period". What could be more cautious than those two phrases? I see nothing wrong with the Motion. I am personally not afraid of expressing myself about anything, and nor do I think is any noble Lord—so what are we talking about?
We could easily vote for the Motion without taking any risk whatever or having any need to apologise to anybody. I am in favour of televising this Chamber. If we make mistakes, I think we can improve on what we do. But there is everything to be said for making Parliament and this House as open as possible.
I wish to add one very personal statement. When my husband died, it was Harold Wilson—now the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Rievaulx—who put me into this House. I am eternally grateful to him for what he has done. I could not enjoy being here more. For anyone interested in politics and who takes them seriously, this is an excellent House. Even though it may not always be perfect, it can be made so. I am all for the televising of our proceedings. There is little else that I can say.
6.6 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Swynnerton: My Lords. Abraham Lincoln once remarked:
"There are few things wholly good or wholly evil. Almost everything of government policy especially is an inseparable compound of the two. So that our best judgment of the preponderance between them is continuously demanded".
I feel that that remark is particularly important in making what judgment we do about the issue which my noble friend Lord Soames has brought before us tonight.
In this nation we have had something like 200 years of constitutional and technological change affecting politics. Just about the time when the suffrage was effectively revised to enable all adults to vote, a series of technological changes began which were probably more important than some of the changes in the suffrage. I refer to the introduction of the microphone at public meetings, the use of radio and television for party political broadcasts and the Gallup polls. I mention all these things because, looking back, it is perfectly obvious that some of them were far more beneficial—and quickly so—than people at the time supposed, while others have turned out to be worse. For example, the introduction of party political broadcasts has, without question, transformed—in my opinion, adversely—the character of elections. The end of the political meeting seems to me to be one of the things we must most lament in the development of politics in the last generation or so.
I think that my mention of these things also reminds us that anyone who should take what my noble friend Lord Soames might think is a negative view of the Motion should not necessarily regard himself, or be regarded, as reactionary, and nor should anyone who takes a positive view necessarily in the light of eternity be expected to be regarded as progressive.
A number of points of view have been put forward as to why we should once more entertain the idea of this innovation: it is desirable that the public should be allowed into our proceedings at one remove, but nevertheless allowed into them. We have had the suggestion that it is beneficial that we, as

1229
parliamentarians—Members of the House of Lords—should in reverse penetrate through the medium of television into the houses of the public at large. We have had the suggestion that the use of television would he good public relations for this House and for Parliament in general. We have had the suggestion made by many noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, that this is the wave of the future; if we do not vote positively now, we are bound to do so some time in the future. All these points of view need to be considered quite carefully and without rancour or asperity.
The first two points are certainly open to question. The public is perfectly able to understand what we are doing here by means of studying Hansard, looking at newspapers and listening to the radio. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, has said that the dimension of observation by sight of what we are doing is even more important. I perfectly accept that that is a view, but as a matter of fact, my belief, as one who lives by his pen—and therefore I should perhaps declare an interest—is that the understanding of what goes on anywhere is better if one reads the written word than sees what has actually happened. The written word demands an effort of intellect and imagination. I suspect that the consequence is that the experience concerned enters into the memory rather more effectively than if one were, by chance, an observer of the occasion.
I come to the question of whether this House or Parliament in general needs public relations. I do not feel that that is the case. On many occasions—and most recently this year—the electorate has voted for a party which has made it perfectly plain that it believes in the future of the House of Lords as it is now.
There is then the suggestion that because other countries have done this we should contemplate doing it ourselves—yet we have many other eccentricities. We have an effective group of working hereditary Peers. Here again we are exceptional, and no one would suggest that we do not make a major contribution. We have the presence in our legislature of Lords Spiritual, and this is an exception. Perhaps, at some time in the past, people thought that might be rather surprising; but with the increasing importance. in my opinion, of religion in world politics we may come to find one day that we are more satisfied than any other nation that we have the presence of Bishops on their Bench.
Thus I am not completely convinced by the arguments that have been put forward; but I might, nevertheless, entertain the idea of an experimental period were it not for two other matters. The first is the question of the selection of material which would be used (and a good deal of attention has been paid to this). I must confess that I agree with my noble friend Lord Peyton (whose maiden speech I much enjoyed and on which I warmly congratulate him) in suggesting that the odds would be that such selection as would be made would be bound by the nature of things, by the nature of the fact that television is concerned to entertain as well as to inform, to get high ratings as well as to educate, and would be bound I think to concentrate on the eccentric, the brusque, the rough and the exceptional.
1230
There is a second point relating to the selection: that was one to which attention has already been paid by my noble friend Lord Selkirk when he spoke of the nature of a speech. A speech should have a shape, an argument, a beginning, an end and middle. I agree with him that it is most unlikely that a speech as a whole would be likely to be broadcast due to the selection process, unless there was the eventuality, which the noble Lord, Lord Howard, thought of as a very unlikely eventuality, of a full channel devoted to our affairs.
The next point is this—and it was touched on very eloquently by the noble Marquess, Lord Tweeddale, when he pointed out that the debates in this House have a peculiar intimacy. I have not been here very long, only two and a half years; a short enough period, nevertheless, not to feel impatient for innovation, but long enough to appreciate the quality of the debates. Our debates often have a very special mixture of the conversational and the rhetorical; the ceremonial and the ordinary, which surely would be altered were there to be a constant programme on television playing on our affairs. It may be that it would not be a substantial change, but it would be a change. How big that change would be and what it would be like would depend on our judgment about what television usually does to politics.
I recognise that television has made many remarkable contributions to entertainment: to our knowledge of sport, of nature and of science. It has enabled us to see films without having to experience the rigours of the cinema queue. But I am doubtful whether television has made the major and positive contribution to politics which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, suggested.
I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, that there are often beautiful programmes on television devoted to politics but I very much doubt whether it can be said as a whole that television has treated politics with the complexity and the depth which is necessary. Indeed—and here again I agree with the noble Marquess, Lord Tweeddale—there has been—not always but often—a tendency to emphasise the superficial and the bland. For all these reasons therefore I have come to believe that the case for alteration has not been made.
The second Lord Falkland (the grandfather I think of the Lord Falkland who gave his name to the islands with which we were so much concerned last year) in a quotation which was a favourite one of the late President Kennedy, said:
"When it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change".
I mention President Kennedy to show that it is a quotation not necessarily of the blackest reaction. I hope very much that as many of your Lordships as feel appropriate will vote against this Motion tonight.
6.14 p.m.
Lady Saltoun: My Lords, I wholeheartedly support this Motion. As the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, has said, it is to television that the majority of people look for news nowadays, and they will do so still more in the future when the advent—which I find so very exciting—of cable television is upon us; so I think it is high time that our proceedings were televised. In fact, I would go so far as to say that if we do not now let

1231
ourselves, or arrange for ourselves, to he televised, in 1984 it will he as if we had refused to admit the press in 1831: so I warmly welcome the prospect. I have long felt that nobody would want to abolish us if they knew what we did, and I sincerely hope the proceedings in another place will also be televised because we have nothing to lose.
Having had my mind set at rest about the obtrusiveness or otherwise of the equipment, my principal concern is about editing. There can be few noble Lords who have not had the experience of making a point and giving an illustration to emphasise it, and then finding the illustration, shorn of the point, picked up and quoted by the media so that it appears at best irrelevant and at worst meaningless, and I am sure we all hope that this will not happen. For this reason alone I certainly agree with the various noble Lords that there should be a monitoring committee.
The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, has voiced my fears lest noble Lords should start speaking to the television audience instead of to the House. I wonder what has been the experience of the Synod in this matter? Most of the speeches in this debate so far have been commendably brief. Could this be because we all want to get home to our television sets to watch "The Great Palace" which is to be broadcast at 9.30 tonight?
6.18 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I hope that the House in deciding—as I hope it will—to vote against this Motion will do so on the grounds of the argument and will not be swayed in voting for it by the extraordinary argument adduced by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, that since it is bound to come anyhow we might as well vote for it now. Being mortal, all of us are destined to die, but moral philosophers have never thought this fact a justification for suicide.
It is a most peculiar Motion because—to some it may seem inappropriate—we have seen its mover, my noble friend Lord Soames, tiptoe—pirouette—round its real content, which is to pave the way for television in another place. I would have thought that those of us who care about parliamentary government and its reputation would have taken on board the undoubted fact that the sound broadcasting of Parliament has done it a great deal of damage. You have only got to go to any political meeting or private gathering and someone will say, "Is that really how the country is governed?"
Some people say this is a distortion that radio has brought because you only get the sound. Those of us who avail ourselves of the privilege of sitting in the Peers Gallery are, in a sense, private television cameras, and what do we see? What we see in Prime Minister's Question Time is no more elevating, no more a tribute to our democratic institutions than what people at home hear on the radio. Indeed, I sometimes wonder whether we may not see one day the statue of Oliver Cromwell come to life like the Commendatore in "Don Giovanni" and march into the House on one of these occasions and repeat his famous words:
"It is not fit that you should sit here any longer … You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing".
1232
I think that the arguments, in Parliament's present frame of mind, at any rate, against televising the other place, are overwhelming. Let us come then to our proper business, which is what we do about ourselves. It is extremely important that the country should know more about the way we operate and the work that we do, much of it, as noble Lords have said, not in the Chamber at all. It is also important that people are in a position to read or in other ways have communicated to them some of the important speeches and arguments that can be put forward in this House at greater leisure and sometimes to greater effect than in another place.
I believe, however, that it is important to look at this from the point of view of the consumer. It is said that we need television because our proceedings get so little reported in the newspapers. Why is this so? One reason is that so many of our proceedings of the greatest importance and interest take place fairly late in the afternoon or in the evening. Is it not better, rather than that the Broadcasting Committee should look at television, that the Procedure Committee should look at our procedures to see whether it would not be possible to postpone to the evening the largely formal business that often takes up the first hour or two of our affairs and bring forward to earlier in the afternoon the important debates to which we would like attention to be paid? In other words, I feel that this television idea is a distraction from our proper business of making clear what is, and should be, the contribution of this House to the government of the country.
The second point that I would like to make is one that I think has been touched upon and sometimes dwelt upon by a number of noble Lords. It is that there is inevitably in what is being proposed—the Motion refers to some proceedings and not to all proceedings—an element of editorial discretion. I fear that not everyone was in accord with the noble Lord, Lord Hill (I am sorry that he is not still in his place) when he said that there was general confidence in the political impartiality of the IBA and the BBC. That general confidence may exist in them as institutions. It is not necessarily a general confidence in those who actually operate on the ground. The various remarks that have been made, not for the first time, about the treatment of our proceedings on radio in "Yesterday in Parliament" bears this out.
Therefore, I think that it is extremely hard to see how the editing is to be done in a way that meets the expectations of those who favour this experiment. It is my view that there is one very successful, and only one very successful, contribution of television to politics in this country. That is the televising of party conferences. I think that one does learn a lot. This year I stayed at home and watched all four party conferences for long periods. The reason is that you get a picture of a meeting. an assembly of speakers, largely uninterrupted by commentary, largely unselected, and sometimes incapable of being selected in advance.
If it was a complete picture of the proceedings of this House that was intended, I admit that my misgivings would, to some extent, be allayed. If, when we get this extraordinary extravagance that we are apparently going in for—cable television—some entrepreneur was prepared to buy our proceedings in toto and use one of his channels in toto to make them available, and if the

1233
sum paid was enough for us to add to our amenities in certain respects, I would again be prepared favourably to consider it. It would then be likely, as mentioned, I think, by a previous speaker, that some other entrepreneur would sell another cable to the other place. That would create a problem that has come up in relation to cable television generally. What do you allow the children to see? Would parents have a sort of dual key in order to cut out Question Time?
These are possibilities. However, we are told that, on expense grounds and on technical grounds, they are possibilities very far ahead. If that is the case, and if what we are really being asked to do is to submit ourselves to editing, to the choice of some, no doubt, industrious and intelligent young men and women as to what the public should know of what we do and say, I think that the price would be high. I join with my noble friend Lord Thomas of Swynnerton and the noble Marquess, Lord Tweeddale, in saying that it would affect our proceedings, not, I think, in the rather obvious way—I do not think there would be many camera-hoggers among us—hut simply because much of what we do and much of our ritual, our repetition of the words "my noble friend" and so forth, which are part and parcel of the way we conduct our affairs, would he unintelligible or seem faintly odd to people not here.
Although I do not think that we would suffer the discredit that the other place has suffered through radio broadcasting, we would, I think, be obliged, in some respects, to change our ways. Since our ways have been developed for the public service to get through a programme of legislation and to discuss matters of policy and which, therefore, must be considered for the time being right, I would not like to see them sacrificed on the altar of new technology.
6.27 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I should like first to add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, on his maiden speech. All of us must try to keep our speeches short, as my noble friend who has just sat down did. I should like to take up one small point made by the noble Lord, Lord Howard. He gave some rather horrifying and costly details of the ambitious schemes that I presume the BBC might wish to install. It should be said that it would be a job for the committee to consider alternative schemes and possibly to ask for alternative tenders. There may be other bodies, such as Channel 4, which might be able to fulfil the task much less expensively. I do not wish the figures mentioned by the noble Lord to be carved in tablets of stone and possibly accepted as being the best quote.
I am afraid that, on this occasion, I do not agree with my noble friend, Lord Beloff. It is one of the few occasions when I have not agreed with him. I believe that radio broadcasting has done this House immeasurable good. It may have reduced respect for the other place to some extent. I have the feeling that if a person shouting like a baboon in another place is seen on television, his constituents will pretty quickly write to him to say, "We did not send you there to behave like a baboon. We sent you there to be a civilised person contributing to the debate in a civilised way". That would be a self-regulatory way of
1234
raising the standard of behaviour in another place. I have perhaps more confidence than my noble friend in the judgment of constituents.
I am lucky enough to have been connected with television almost since its invention. It was 50 years ago that I joined EMI on a graduate apprenticeship and found myself designing the first television sets put on the market in 1936. Later, I joined the BBC Television outside broadcasts department, which was great fun. It was suggested—I believe rightly—that it should possibly he the OBs, on a drive-in basis, which should undertake the experiment here. They are very different people but just as enthusiastic, I am sure, as when I started many years ago. That experience is my excuse for taking part in the debate.
I wish to underline that Britain started the first public television service in the world. We have had our debates. We have havered. We have wavered. What is sad is that we still have not—I hope that tonight we shall—made up our minds to go ahead. We have always in this House taken a more forward-looking view. It would be nice to have the House of Commons with us, as my noble friend who opened this debate with such a masterly speech, remarked, but I do not think that we should any longer wait on them. We should go ahead with the experiment and see how it goes. No doubt the other place would study the results as well and we should both gain from the experience.
Democracy as a whole is under attack, as we have seen from what happened yesterday as regards the Brent Council, as reported in our papers today. Parliamentary democracy is also under attack. There are those who take a cynical view, but ill-informed mockery does not do us any good. Let us give the nation a chance to see what goes on in this House and (if they will come with us) what goes on in another place.
Television is the most dominant medium for information, instruction and entertainment. It is far more dominant than our newspapers today, and I cannot help feeling that it is wholly wrong that Parliament should be the one place—with the possible exception of the law courts—which is not televised and where democracy is not shown to be working. People do not understand what this House contributes to the parliamentary scene.
While we have been arguing, discussing, debating and sometimes winning or losing by a single vote, the rest of the world has gone quietly ahead. Why cannot we trust our people like the rest of the democratic world? Even those who are not for democracy, like the USSR, televise their parliament. The Commonwealth has been a little slow. Perhaps it has inherited that slowness from us. Australia, which pioneered the sound broadcasting of its Parliament in the 1930s—50 years ago—has not accepted television. Canada has had an edited edition since 1977, which it does very successfully, and I believe that it is reasonably popular and well conducted. New Zealand has no television. As someone said earlier, the United States Congress is very thoroughly televised.
In fact, I think that at the last official count there were 24 countries which televise their Parliaments; the Inter-Parliamentary Union said in 1978 that there were 22 such countries. Let us consider Western Europe. France has live and edited television on a very

1235
regular basis. West Germany has had recorded television for 30 years, and live television for 20 years. Italy has live and recorded television for five or 10 minutes at a time, every day. The Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Switzerland and Sweden all have it, and yet we are told that we cannot have it or should not have it. I cannot help feeling that it is wrong for us to stand back any longer and I hope very much that, if a vote takes place later, the Motion which my noble friend has put down will be widely supported.
As I said earlier, editing plays an important part. Many of the countries that I have quoted have edited versions of their Parliaments. Who does the editing? I am sure that we can trust the broadcasting authorities to have general supervision and to set a high standard. A parliamentary committee will be needed, which should perhaps sketch and mark out the court in which the game is to be played and lay down certain basic rules, as my noble friend suggested in his opening speech. It must also be borne in mind that the IBA supervises programmes and tries to ensure that they honour the balance which each programme company tries to keep. However, the BBC is judge and jury in its own case and I think that it carries out the task rather less well than the IBA. So perhaps there is a lesson to be learnt; perhaps there ought to be more careful supervision of the BBC's balance of programmes, particularly in their current affairs programme.
I still think that we shall perhaps need a parliamentary committee of some sort just to act as a supervisory body. Someone has to adjust the rules. Someone has to ensure that everything is going all right, while leaving the editorial content and the choice of what is televised to the individual companies. If televising were to take place in both Houses, I hope that a joint committee would be set up, or perhaps separate committees with a common secretariat, because I feel that the more connections we have with another place the better for both of us. But, if not, then perhaps we should set up our own committee to watch over this experiment and, if it becomes permanent, to supervise the rules and the balance of the programmes.
I sincerely hope that the Commons will join in. I have no doubt that, if they do so, 85 per cent. of parliamentary televising will still be about the Commons, but we should get 15 per cent. and that would be very worth while, because people would begin to understand what we do, what we stand for, and the way in which we conduct our business. As I said earlier, Britain was the first nation to start a public service. Is it to be the last of the advanced nations to start the televising of its Parliament? I hope not, and I hope that tonight's vote will ensure that we go ahead with this experiment. I am confident that it will lead to the general televising of Parliament.
6.36 p.m.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, I am sorry that I missed the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil. As a journalist, I have heard him on many occasions, and he has often given me anguished delight—delight at his style of utterance, and anguish at the arguments that he has advanced. Thank God that today we are not debating a party subject and I am able to agree with almost every word that the noble Lord. Lord Orr-Ewing, has spoken!
1236
In the light of what this House has become, with its enormous development of informed talent, and in the light of the role that television now plays in the life of the nation. I have come to the conclusion that we have no moral right to keep cameras out of this Chamber. Now we have an opportunity of letting everyone into our public gallery, just as everyone can see a cup final or a coronation. Our deliberations, too, are a national event. We do not own this Chamber; we are the custodians of its fabric and its traditions, but we do not own it. It is the people out there who pay the expenses and the salaries, and who pay for the maintenance of this Chamber. Of course, when we are televised the audience for our deliberations will be limited, but that is unimportant. What matters is that the nation has the chance of watching us, or watching something else. What matters is that the nation has the right of choice.
I was rather astonished to hear my noble friend Lord Strauss say that people can find out from the newspapers what is going on in this Chamber. I was equally appalled to hear the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton, say that people could read Hansard, or the newspapers, or listen to the radio. Let us take the example of a young housewife whose family newspaper is the Daily Mirror, or the Sun. She will find very little about Parliament in those papers. When is she to listen—8.40 in the morning when she is getting the children off to school, or 11.30 in the evening, at the end of a busy day?
Newspapers no longer give a high priority to parliamentary debates. The Times has maintained the traditional page; the Daily Telegraph, which reports with enormous skill, nevertheless has cut down the amount that it gives to Parliament; my own paper, the Guardian, almost neglects the reporting of Parliament and always seems to feel that, if it reports our debates, it might offend its radical readers who long for the day of our abolition. Yesterday we had in our Chamber a notable and very remarkable debate, which was informative, frightening and inspiring. This is the one assembly where the Church and Chapel, the law, and the politicians, can engage in a moral argument. The Times gave the debate justice. The Daily Telegraph did very clever, newsworthy coverage. I say that because if there is anything that is news, it is the juxtaposition of three things: the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, the police, and young blacks, and so the Telegraph concentrated entirely on Lord Scarman's speech and on nobody else's. As far as I could see, the Guardian a paper which is very concerned with race relations—and which had a good piece about it elsewhere—did not give anything to the debate.
To newspapers words are no longer of news value if they are just words. What matters is the political struggle, the contest for power, and recording of decisions which are about power. Since this House has very little power, it is not very newsworthy.
In the papers yesterday the most newsworthy event in regard to this House was that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was on crutches. The only way in which members of the public could follow the proceedings of our House in any detail would be by subscribing to Hansard, which is for a very small—and affluent—minority.

1237
There are many forms which reports of this House might take, from "Tonight in Parliament" to a kind of documentary based on a major debate, such as we had yesterday; or, given new technical developments, there could some day be a continuous and complete reporting of both Houses of Parliament.
I hope that tonight this House will accede to the proposition. I hope that, after consultations with another place and with the broadcasting authorities, the broadcasting committee will recommend some experiments which will lead to permanent arrangements. I do not think that we ought to be engaged in a race with the other House to be first before the cameras. I hope that we can reach an accord with them. On the other hand, if they are totally opposed to televising the proceedings, and are opposed to it for all time, I do not see why they should exercise a kind of psychic moral veto over this House on the question of television.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I say that he did not mention the possibility of video cassettes of debates.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, I think that against the video nasties we would be one of the video niceties. If there is a permanent record of what goes on in this Chamber, I think that it should be quite possible for someone to make a kind of feature film out of various debates in this House.
6.42 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, as the noble Marquess, Lord Tweeddale, said, the arguments have been pretty well put by now. However, I think that one ought to examine the arguments that have been put to see how they fit in with one's instinct on this matter. The one part of the debate—and I think that I have heard it all—that disturbs me a little is the suggestion made from one or two quarters that one can separate the two Houses; that it may be difficult in another place but we would come out of it all right.
We are talking about the effect that the televising of the proceedings will have on Parliament. We cannot separate the Houses. We are part of Parliament. Without this House, it is not Parliament as Parliament has been built up; and without the other place, it is not Parliament. Therefore, we cannot argue in isolation as to whether it would have a good or bad effect on this particular Chamber.
The other point that disturbs me a little—and I think that my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing emphasised it—is what is said in the Motion—that we are only asking for an "experimental period". We have had our experiment. I remember vividly the previous debates which eventually resulted in sound broadcasting being accepted. The whole argument then was that we will not have television at this stage but we will have an experimental period of sound broadcasting. So the experiment has been in existence for some time.
I wonder how many of my noble friends think that Parliament as a whole has been enhanced as a consequence of the experiment of sound broadcasting? I should have thought that the effect it has had on the status of Members of Parliament and on the status of
1238
edicts that we send out from this House, with all the power of the legislature behind it, has been that, as a consequence, Parliament has been weakened. I believe that we ought to approach the thinking on this subject, particularly now that it is at the formal Motion stage, by asking ourselves how it will affect our parliamentary system as a whole. Although we talk about nuclear bombs, unemployment and social needs, what we really should he concerned about at the minute is whether the parliamentary system itself will survive, with all the freedoms that we hold so dear. Therefore, while there is that possible doubt, we must not allow anything to happen that would weaken the parliamentary system.
Again, my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing listed a number of countries that allow television broadcasting of their Parliament's proceedings. He suggested that because they allow it, we automatically ought to follow, otherwise we are being old hat and are falling behind. He said that we invented television, but do not use it in our Parliament, whereas other countries do so. Six of the countries on the list he quoted have one-chamber Governments. Will we follow that lead? That would mean that the abolition of the House of Lords would fit into their pattern. Six of the countries he quoted are republics. Does that mean that our monarchy system, which has proved itself so pliable and so sensible, is to be altered? I do not think the fact that other countries televise their parliamentary proceedings has anything to do with what we ought to do. Their parliaments are quite different from ours. In our Parliament we have the ultimate and the full power. My noble friend referred to presidents and special presidential powers; but to some extent they weaken the ultimate powers of their parliaments. So our Parliament is much more important to us because of that ultimate power than the parliaments of any other countries.
I ask myself: if we allow the television cameras in, will it do good or will it do harm? I do not think that it will do any good, because all of the good that has been quoted that could come from it—for instance, letting people know what is happening and giving them a clear understanding of what goes on in Parliament—is already being undertaken. I do not add to the criticisms that both Houses of Parliament receive from the press. I do not criticise the help that Parliament receives from radio broadcasts. We cannot rule out the fact that at the minute television plays a great part in explaining to the people what goes on. Quite a lot of television coverage reflects what goes on in this place. The only difference that the cameras would make is that people would see the lips moving when the arguments were being adduced. That is the only difference. The actual arguments would be the same, unless they were altered because of the siren-like appeal that the cameras have by causing people not to be normal any more. I defy any noble Lord to think that he can be as objective and as free when he knows that he is having his photograph taken as when he is not. It makes a difference to the general psyche and to the general way in which to present the argument. I believe that to allow the cameras into this House and the other place at this time would interfere with the general value of the contributions that would be made.

1239
I also believe that it would weaken the respect that the people of this country have for their Parliament. That is very important. Invariably Parliament brings restriction and pain to people. Nothing very pleasant usually flows out of Parliament. It restricts someone from doing something or causes extra pain because of imposing extra taxes. If you ask people to expect restrictions and pain, they must have a great deal of respect for those who impose it and from whom they are prepared to accept it.
I have been interested in Parliament and politics for many years. My claim to having a view at all is the fact that I became a parliamentary candidate in 1938 and a Member of Parliament in 1950. My first official contact with politics dates back to 1934. With 50 years of reasonable contact behind me and having fought 15 elections—12 of them parliamentary—I have pretty good contact with the people which enables me to have an instinct as to how they might react.
We have had the radio reports direct from Parliament, with all the bear garden approach that seems to come over the air. As regards our supposed benefiting because we have come over rather better, it is not that we have made any great positive contribution, it merely means that perhaps we have been a little better, or less worse, than the other place. King Midas was asked to adjudicate between two flautists for a great prize. It was said that he heard the first, and gave the prize to the other one without listening to him. That is the only advantage that we have had. It is a relative one.
In my experience over recent years, I have seen the status of Members of Parliament go down. When I first became a candidate in 1938, my recollection of the status of Members of Parliament in terms of people being prepared to accept the edicts which came from them is that it was higher than it is today. I believe that that loss of respect, that lowering of status, which is vital if we are to have ordered government, is mainly due to the extra projection which has not concentrated upon the words. It is our words, what we say, the words that we produce in legislation that are important, not how we look.
I cannot make myself believe that either in your Lordships' House or in another place our pictures will enhance our status. It is the words we speak and the legislation we produce which will do that, and because I think our status would he injured I hope that we shall not give instructions to the committee to make any preparations for any further experiments in that direction.
6.52 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, surely the importance of this Motion transcends personal preferences, or twinges of political camera-phobia, to which some of your Lordships have adverted. It reaches out into the realms of the public domain. For your Lordships' House is a vital component part of' the machinery of overt constitutional government. Yet beyond those Brass Gates, few know of our doings. Our order of debate, our conduct of business, are wrapped in the mists of the miasma of ignorance.
It is not to the point to criticise the extant system of newspaper reporting, radio programmes, or television
1240
coverage. Why? It is because those instruments of dissemination, even if improved, even if perfected. could never afford a substitute for the proposal of this Motion—live TV of some of our proceedings. For, if seeing is believing, what is not seen live on TV is not so easily believed today. Why should there be any loss of respect? This is a concept that is wholly not understood.
How else shall these mists of ignorance be dispelled? How else may we refute the case which questions the value of this very institution? If we do not take the initiative, who else shall take it for us? The situation in your Lordships' House is not the same as that in another place. Arguments about the want of wisdom of television in another place are surely hardly to the point.
In the other place, the media coverage is adequate—some complain that it is more than adequate. Elected representatives keep in touch with constituents, and so far as I am aware no Member of the other place has as yet suggested the abolition of the other place. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Strauss, my noble friend Lord Beloff, and other noble Lords who think likewise, surely what action is taken in another place is a matter for the other place. We control our procedures. We do not have to move in step. We have often led the way in the past, and if it seems sensible for us to do so on this occasion, why should we not do so again?
Implementation of the principle of this Motion envisages not only the difficult questions of selection and balance but those of who is to decide such questions. My noble friend Lord Windlesham assumes that such questions shall lie within the exclusive province of the TV companies. "For", he says, "we could not make such decisions for ourselves". Perhaps—and I defer to his experience—broadly speaking, that might be right, but in practice would not your Lordships prefer the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing that a joint committee should be set up so that this shall not lie within the exclusive province of the TV companies, but within their province while we shall have some say? In my respectful submission, the concept of my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing is commendable.
These means of implementation—call it anything you like—are really not before us today. When brought before your Lordships' House by the Sound Broadcasting Committee they will not doubt warrant careful scrutiny. Perhaps before the report is laid it is premature to raise objections in advance. As yet, is it not fair to suggest that the objections so far raised are illusory rather than real?
To conclude, it is surely wide of the mark to consider whether, the parliamentary system will survive. It could not crumble at the touch of a camera. It is surely wide of the mark to suggest that the Motion serves as a distractionfrom our proper business. That could be put right irrespective of a camera if it is wrong, and I am in no position to suggest that it is. There is no question of entitlement. It is a question of advantage. Should we not support a Motion which envisages review at the end of an experimental period? Should we not seize the advantage, for a great principle of importance is at stake within the public domain. An innovative step, a timely reform, is proposed. This

1241
surely warrants massive support in any Division tonight.
Baroness Gaitskell: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him whether he agrees that surely we should not be so cautious? We should not be so afraid? We have nothing to be afraid of when we speak in this Chamber, and in what we have to speak about. The more we stand up for ourselves the better it is, and the better it will be. I do not understand people who are afraid of being televised at this time. It is bound to come. We may as well be ready for it.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell—and I am extremely indebted to her—echoes with far greater eloquence than I could ever hope to muster, my innermost thoughts.
7 p.m.
Lord Gridley: My Lords, as I rise to speak in this debate this evening I feel it is one of the issues of the greatest importance to your Lordships' House. It seems to me that the issue lies in how the BBC propose to display and keep safe with the public the reputation we at present enjoy. That is one of the most important issues which face us.
I listened with interest to what my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing said about our inability to do what other Parliaments in other parts of the world do; that is, televise their proceedings. I listened to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, who said that we had no right to keep television cameras out of the House. That is not the predominant issue in the debate. I shall say some harsh words about the BBC and this proposal that we should be televised and also some words in praise of the corporation. I propose to deal with the words of praise first.
For their televised broadcasts of Parliament the BBC deserve the highest praise. They are past masters in the picture they display of our great inheritance, accompanied by the people who give an account of what they are seeing. This evening many will say that when they have seen broadcasts of this House, "It was wonderful. I had never thought it would be like that". These are expressions I have heard about the programmes that the BBC are televising at present. The BBC are particularly adept at portraying national events. The wedding of the Prince and Princess of Wales was an example of televised broadcasts in which they excel. Other examples are the overseas broadcasts which are absolutely first class and listened to by millions of people.
I remember many years ago being 12,000 miles away from this country out in the jungle when King George V came to Westminster Hall to receive the loyal greetings of both Houses of Parliament. At that time we were listening to the cheering crowds which met him and the Queen and the speech he made at the end of it. I was standing next to a young Malay who said to me, "Having heard the King speak has made me want to do something better with my own life". Such incidents reinforce my argument about the great contribution the BBC has made to our national life and inheritance.
I have heard some arguments in the debate that because of the technological advance television broadcasting can be better, but it is 15 years since we
1242
had the last debate on this subject. Great advances have been made and they justify our having television in your Lordships' House. The arguments continue: we cannot stand still. We must agree to experiments in the televising of our debates. I regret that in that connection I cannot agree.
What is to be decided tonight, which has been touched on by other speakers, is what the public shall see. The BBC have great power: they are a law unto themselves in many things which they do, and nobody can deny that. They can cut parts of the tape to be televised and can re-edit. How will the selection be made of that part of our proceedings to be televised? Is all this to be left in the hands of the cameraman operating his camera or will an officer of the BBC be behind him to give him advice? None of these decisions is in the hands of your Lordships. If the power were in your hands the stock answer from the BBC, if there were interference with anything that they wanted to televise, would be that your Lordships were imposing a censorship.
Above all, I should like to know from those noble Lords who advocate the televising of proceedings—apart from the civilised way in which we deal with each other and our proceedings—what precautions they suggest should be taken to ensure that the difficulties which I have suggested might arise are dealt with? I maintain that the BBC's complaints commission set up as a forum where issues may be taken is a farce as it works at present. Have we advanced in our principles during the last few years? When these have been attacked, as they have so often on BBC broadcasts and television. have those principles not been very difficult to return to, and have those people who have attacked those principles in our public life been able to suggest any replacement? I suggest that they have not been able to do so.
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe: My Lords, I rise to make a factual correction. What was described as the BBC's complaints commission is a programme complaints commission appointed by Government and nothing whatsoever to do with the BBC, except in so far as the BBC has to answer it and to publish the results of the adjudications.
Lord Gridley: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord if I have given the wrong picture of that. but if a person had a complaint he would complain to the BBC. The complaint would go to the BBC, who would answer the complaint. That would return to the complainant and another complaint would follow. That is a very laborious way of dealing with the issue and was never satisfactory in its outcome.
I have nothing further to say on this subject. This is a vital issue in the debate. I have great praise for some of the things which the BBC do. If they are allowed to proceed as they do at present without any safeguards in the way that television broadcasts are transmitted to the public, there is a great danger that we might rue the day and regret the decision to give them this power.
7.7 p.m.
Lord Aylestone: My Lords, I have listened carefully to almost every speech since we started at about quarter past three. Having listened to those speeches I have read and re-read the Motion. Many noble Lords

1243
seem to have assumed that the Motion is seeking an experiment in televising the proceedings in this House. It is not doing anything of the sort. It reminds us that we have had the experiment and is instructing us to get on with the job as we had the experiment some 16 years ago.
The experiment was in my time—just. I remember it taking place as many other noble Lords must. I should like to make it absolutely clear that if we are considering yet another experiment, with outside broadcast units being wheeled in for that specific purpose on that occasion, a number of noble Lords will feel that it was not worthwhile. We should take into account what the House has already decided that there should be televising of this House, but the method should be watched over for an experimental period.
In doing that, I personally would be saddened if we were to go it alone without the House of Commons, but that may be necessary if they do not go along with us at the same time. I say "saddened" because many of us in this Chamber have been in another place and we understand that on occasions it is noisy. This has been referred to on some occasions as oral violence but, if one looks and thinks back a little and looks at some of the prints of a hundred years ago, there, too, one sees the Members of the House of Commons with fists raised and mouths wide open. the only difference being that they wore top hats in those days. I do not like it; I did not like it when I was part of it. But it is part of our Parliament. That is why I feel that, although it may have some bad effect, it is better to cover the whole Parliament than this Chamber only. But, if we cannot have that, I am quite prepared to go along with covering only this Chamber.
The Motion before us requires that we should refer the whole question to the Sound Broadcasting Committee. My noble friend and ally in front of me will, I hope, not think that I am disagreeing with him when I say that I doubt if that is the right body. The Sound Broadcasting Committee has a great deal of experience in the sound broadcasting of both Houses. I think it would be much better for a new—a Select Committee if you wish—joint committee of both Houses to be set up to look at the whole question. I suggest that the Government might be prepared to do that quickly and look at both Houses at the same time, because, from my understanding of the position, the House of Commons are now nearly in the position of deciding that they, too, should like televising of their own House.
There will be technical problems for the committee to look at, whether it be the Sound Broadcasting Committee or whether it be a new Select Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Howard, mentioned to us the problem of manned cameras. If we were finally being televised outside any experimental period, we should not have manned cameras, we would have unmanned cameras with a console outside the Chamber somewhere controlling their movement. This is the sort of thing that is done. It is extremely expensive and would take some time to fit. One cannot buy that sort of camera off the shelf. Another problem that the committee will have to look at is the question of time. I know that some Members have suggested that almost
1244
the whole of our proceedings should be covered. That is really nonsense. One would not get an audience for a full coverage of Parliament, so it must be the interesting parts of our procedure which are covered—for example, Question Time.
There would be difficulties about Question Time, but it would have great appeal. Perhaps it would have to have sub-titles running underneath explaining what the Question is about: because the words that we utter when we ask a Question convey nothing. Or perhaps there could be a commentator explaining exactly what happens. I feel also that the committee might have a look at the whole question of editorship. It is not going to be an easy one. I have been chairman of the IBA and I know some of the problems. But, in view of what was said in the last speech—and the noble Lord, Lord Howard, joined in and mentioned it—if any Member who had been televised felt that he has been badly quoted, wrongly quoted, or that there was an infringement of the Act, he should have available to him the full services of the Inquiry Committee, which is doing an excellent job. It is called the Commission of Inquiry; it belongs neither to the BBC nor the IBA, and it is chaired by that distinguished Member of this House, the noble Baroness, Lady Pike. Anyone who felt that he had been personally misquoted would first of all complain to the broadcasting authorities themselves, but there would be redress.
These problems would have to be looked at and the final thing that would have to be looked at would be the question of cost. It would be costly. I am quite sure that neither the BBC nor the IBA nor cable television, when it comes, could possibly afford to cover the whole cost of it. The Government will have to face up to the fact that there will necessarily be some cost. On the other hand, with video taping, there would be some income to the broadcasting authorities arising, provided that that was in the agreement.
I do not intend to go any further except to say that my colleagues on this side of the alliance, although it is a free vote and they will vote as they wish, would, I think, generally prefer to see this House televised; but that, if the other House came along with us, it would be a better proposition. Perhaps I may say that I agree with the noble Lord. Lord Soames, that nothing should be hidden. It should be, to quote Cromwell, as he did, "Warts and all".
7.15 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, may I first thank the noble Lord, Lord Soames, for enabling us this evening again to discuss the question of televising the House. I must say that I agree with many previous speakers that, though we are not a democratically elected body, and we are the secondary body of the Legislature, the public have a right to know what we are doing. For very many years Hansard has provided that record and, for the public in an era of increasingly better ways of communication, more than that is now required.
As we have been reminded, since 1978 our proceedings have been sound recorded, and edited extracts from those recordings have been broadcast. I may say that I welcomed that decision of the House at that time, as I had already for five years seen the effect of the broadcasting of Question Time at the Greater

1245
London Council. That was certainly beneficial there, as it enabled people to realise what a great city authority was doing for our metropolis.
I could not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Soames, when he said that the question of this House being abolished was one of the major issues at the last general election. I do not see the question of the televising of this House as an issue related to the question of House of Lords reform. The question before us tonight is the question of public access. As I have said, that access was initially granted by admitting the public to the Galleries, then through Hansard, and then through radio. Now it is proposed to grant access through television.
Logically, it should be a complete record on cable. Indeed, the cable channel operators will have 32 channels to play with. Four of the channels are already spoken for, and so they will have 28 to fill up. I should have thought that it would not be difficult for them to find a channel or two to devote exclusively to the televising of Parliament. I understand, following a discussion this morning with some people involved with cable, that one of the problems that cable operators will find will be to produce sufficient British products to achieve a suitable balance in their total network; and it is felt that to be able continuously to televise via cable both Houses of Parliament would enable their British quota to be considerably enhanced.
In this regard I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, that he need have no fear of children being forced to watch Question Time in the Houses of Parliament, since I am also told that it is quite possible for people subscribing to a cable system to say that they do not wish to receive a particular channel. Therefore, they can say that they do not wish to receive the parliamentary channel.
As I see it, the major problem that faces us with the televising of Parliament is whether we should provide under our own control a television recording of what happens in the Chamber, with the media able to use from it such extracts as they wish, adding their own commentary; or whether the media should have total control with guidelines. What has concerned some Peers is that, in their recordings, the television cameras might pick up not only individual speakers, but also the personal foibles of Peers in the line of the camera. Indeed, from viewing the experimental film made in 1968, it is clear that this is a real problem and that the camera should concentrate specifically either on individual speakers or on long shots of the House as a whole.
This brings me on to the whole problem of who edits and how the editing is to be carried out. Undoubtedly, if complete programmes were made in this House, there would be a danger of censorship and also a danger that the programmes would be very boring. On the whole, I think that the present arrangements for the broadcasting of Parliament have worked well; but they have caused problems and have given rise to frequent complaints. My position as Opposition Chief Whip means that those complaints about broadcasts come to me fairly frequently. They are usually of the nature that the proceedings in this House have been neglected in one or other of the programmes.
1246
This problem was highlighted last Thursday, a week ago today, when we had a debate on the NGA dispute. I gather that the debate was reported very fairly in "Today in Parliament" last Thursday evening, but the following morning there was a very distorted report which gave the impression that this House was truculent and unruly. This was achieved by running various episodes next to each other and it did not give a true impression at all. Indeed, I would go further and say that a consequential statement arising from that was not reported at all. Having said that, I must agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, that eventually it is the media who will have to decide what is and what is not to be broadcast.
We have had some debate this evening on the technical aspects of broadcasting and we have all been grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe, for his expertise in this area, and for informing us of the problems of an experiment. I was equally grateful to learn—as indeed one already knew—that some of the problems of the past, such as hot lights and obtrusive cameras, can now be overcome.
The right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Chichester, was concerned with the problem of Peers playing to the camera. I do not think that this is a great problem, though I suppose that somebody investigating the average length of sittings of this House, and finding that over the past 15 years it has increased considerably, might say that that was a result of the proceedings of the House being broadcast. But others might think that there were other reasons for that.
This problem was also raised in a robust maiden speech, on which I must congratulate him, by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, who doubted whether Parliament and television were good for each other. All I can say is that I am no longer conscious—and I do not think other noble Lords are conscious—of the Sound Broadcasting Box situated above the Clock in the House. Furthermore, I do not think we are any longer conscious of those in the Public Gallery—although I may add that if my wife is in the Public Gallery I am concious of the fact.
When the noble Viscount replies, I hope that he will be able to confirm that if this Motion is passed tonight it will in no way bind this House to proceed with the televising of the proceedings, with or without an experiment, before the other place comes to a decision to proceed with a proposal or with an experiment. I do not think that we should be in the position of bouncing the other place into a decision to televise by taking an irrevocable decision ourselves tonight.
As I see it, the Sound Broadcasting Committee could come up with proposals for an experiment and could also indicate when, and in what circumstances, that experiment should take place. They could suggest a similar experiment in another place—which would indeed be presumptuous of the committee—or a period of time before any long-term decision is taken, to enable attempts to be made to get an agreement with another place. This is a question of moving step in step with another place and it is a matter that has been raised by a number of speakers. Some noble Lords have suggested that it should be ignored, but it is something of which we much must take account.

1247
I tend—rather unusually—to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, who said that we are talking about the televising of Parliament as a whole. But I must also agree with my noble friend Lord Shackleton, who put it in a rather different way when he said that it is not possible for this House to be televised in the long-term, without the other place being televised as well. I fancy that those two noble Lords might find themselves on different sides in the Division Lobbies this evening.
We must remember that, however much we are devoted to our work here, we are a revising Chamber and we are not the primary Chamber of Parliament. I hope that the noble Viscount will be able to clarify this point. Indeed, just before I rose to speak the noble Lord. Lord Aylestone, gave a rather different interpretation from what my interpretation had been of the Motion before us this evening. Therefore, it is important that we should get clarification. Finally, my noble friends will be voting one way or the other on this issue, according to how their minds have been swayed in the debate this evening, or how they might be swayed by the final words of the noble Viscount.
7.28 p.m.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I think it will be agreed that we have had a very remarkable debate. We have had very nearly 30 speakers. In fact, unless I spoil it by going on for too long now, we shall have had 30 speakers in about 4¼ hours. I think that your Lordships will agree that this has been a very remarkable example, and it is one that might he followed on some other occasions, though to say that might be tempting fate too far.
Perhaps I may start by congratulating my very old and noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil on his maiden speech. He and I were colleagues in another place for a very long time, so it is a great pleasure for me to be able to congratulate him here tonight. He knows that I do not agree at all with anything that he said in his maiden speech. But, equally, I have to admit that he put forward all the arguments which I have to answer to my own satisfaction in coming to my own view. That, after all, is the importance of the debate, and I very much congratulate him on putting his views so clearly.
I think that I should just answer the point made by several noble Lords, which was underlined just now by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, about how we proceed and how our relations will look with another place. I hope I made it clear in my first intervention that I foresaw difficulties, both practical and political, in one House proceeding ahead of the other. That was deliberately done and, after the debate, I still feel that that problem remains. After all, many of those who have spoken have experience in both Houses. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, a predecessor of mine in this office, probably faced the same problem with his colleagues when the question was raised previously. We are both anxious on this score.
The noble lord, Lord Aylestone, said that he would be prepared to go it alone. Nevertheless, he would, he said, dislike having to go it alone, and it would be much better if it were possible for both Houses to act
1248
together. I learned much from his considerable experience when I became Opposition Chief Whip in another place. He had previously been Chief Whip for many years and was Leader of the House when I was Opposition Chief Whip. I agree profoundly with the noble Lord about that. The answer I must give to all noble Lords who have raised the point is that, as I understand it, if this Motion is passed by your Lordships' House tonight, the question will be remitted to the Sound Broadcasting Committee to devise a basis on which they should come back to this House, and to your Lordships, as to how we should proceed with the experiment. The noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, described it as a cautious Motion. The noble Baroness is correct: it is cautious. When we reach that stage we shall be in a position to consider how and in what way we should proceed.
It is also true that the period of time during which the matter would be discussed by the Sound Broadcasting Committee would enable another place to take their discussions further. It would be possible for more discussions to take place with my colleagues in the Government. We should then be better equipped to see what might be the attitude of another place. I said at the beginning of our debate that I believed it would be unfortunate if another place thought we were determined at all costs to go ahead without giving them time to consider it and if another place felt that in some way we were seeking to "bounce" them. Unlike my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls and other speakers, I want the whole of the proceedings of Parliament to be televised. I want the proceedings in the House of Commons to be televised. I have always wanted their proceedings to be televised and I shall give some of the reasons why I believe that they should be televised. If I did not, I am not sure that I should want one House to go it alone, but in the circumstances I have to say that I do want those proceedings to be televised.
On that basis, perhaps I may mention some of the points which noble Lords have made. The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, spoke of the last experiment when the sports debate was televised. Yesterday afternoon I watched a recording of that debate. I agree with the noble Lord: I thought that it was very good. The noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, with his many years of experience, said that television was the best exposer of information. I am sure he is right. The noble Lord also said that we must not engage in a public relations exercise. He is right about that, too. The noble Lord said, too, that it made it slightly easier to deal with the considerable problems of editing, a problem which the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, and others have mentioned. Those problems are perhaps more difficult than he imagines, and will cause us difficulty both in the Sound Broadcasting Committee and afterwards.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, said that the public had a right to be given a clear picture of what is going on. I have considerable sympathy for his point of view. My noble friend Lord Selkirk raised some powerful arguments against the televising of proceedings. As one who has great respect for my noble friend and his knowledge of this House and of public life, again I have to answer to my own satisfaction some of the powerful points which he

1249
made. The noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe, gave us the benefit of his very considerable technical knowledge after his long time as a governor and chairman of the BBC. He gave us a clear picture of some of the problems which we shall have to face in the Sound Broadcasting Committee and some of the problems which, if televising is to go forward, I shall, if I can, have to square at some stage with my colleagues and with the Treasury. However, we shall have to see how we get on.
The noble Lord, Lord Strauss, made a very powerful speech, as he did in the past. During our long careers in the other place I sometimes agreed with him. I do not agree with him tonight but I have great respect for the views he has put forward. My noble friend Lord Windlesham, who has considerable knowledge of these matters, pointed out that in the past the House of Lords had led the way. It led the way over the press gallery between 1831 and 1835. It is possible for us to lead, and I say to my noble friend and to your Lordships generally that, if we decide to pass this Motion, we may well be leading again. It is the speed at which we are able to lead which is important. We have to get another place to decide that they believe it will be worth while. But in itself it would be an act of leadership and, some would think, an act of leadership which is somewhat overdue.
The noble Lord, Lord Molloy, said that he was in favour of the televising of our proceedings but he said that he disliked television performers. I understand his point of view. Sometimes I dislike them, too. My noble friend Lord O'Neill of the Maine spoke of his experience of the French experiment and said that the cameras do not necessarily act as a magnet. He is probably correct. My noble friend Lord Thomas of Swynnerton made a very powerful speech against the Motion. I disagree with one point that he made. As a great exponent of the written word he is right in saying that it is extremely powerful, but it is only powerful for those who are prepared to read it, and even the writings of the noble Lord may not reach quite so wide an audience as either he or many of us should like. The noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, pointed out very clearly that a great many people do not read the written word and, if they do read the written word in the press, have considerable difficulty in divining much of what is going on in Parliament. What I might describe as our popular newspapers use their space for other matters which they believe are of greater interest to members of the public—and perhaps they are.
It is equally true that some of the popular newspapers rely on reports from very amusing sketch writers about what goes on in Parliament. It could be said that I am one of those who has suffered considerably from sketch writers over the years. I should not be fair to myself if I said that I thought they were always fair. Sometimes they are fair, but sometimes they have a touch of prejudice about them so far as certain individuals are concerned.
The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, is in favour of the experiment. However, she is worried about selective quotation. So am I. We all suffer from that. The monitoring committee which she mentioned might be the answer. I was surprised by what my noble friend Lord Beloff, for whom I have great respect, said. He said that he was against the televising of the
1250
proceedings in another place. I understand his view, but I question whether sound radio is necessarily the best example of what might happen if the proceedings were televised. The situation might be very different. I believe that television rather than sound radio would be much better for another place. I shall come back to that point in a moment.
My noble friend praised the party conferences. The televising of party conferences is one of the reasons why I have become increasingly certain that the televising of Parliamentary proceedings would be a good idea. I was surprised that my noble friend took the opposite view while supporting the televising of Party conferences. My noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing, who has considerable knowledge of television over a very long period of time, said that he felt that television was likely to improve behaviour in another place. I do not believe he would suggest that it needs to he improved here. I, too, believe that it would. My view is founded on my belief, after the considerable period of time during which I sought to represent a constituency in another place, that my constituents would not have enjoyed seeing me partaking in some of the activities which sometimes happen there. However, my old constituents, country people in the North of England, might take a different view. Nevertheless, I suspect that constituents would still have the last word on the matter and I do not believe that they would like much of the behaviour that they would see.
My noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls does not want the proceedings to be televised and he made his position very clear. Far be it from me to argue with him. He has had considerably more experience of fighting elections and winning them by narrow margins than anyone in this country.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: And losing them by narrow margins.
Viscount Whitelaw: But he won more than he lost, my Lords. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway believes it to be the machinery of overt constitutional government and feels that we should go forward with the experiment. My noble friend Lord Gridley is against it. He has reservations about televising proceedings, which perhaps can be answered so far as the activities of the BBC are concerned. However, he has some doubts because of the experience of sound broadcasting. I hope that I have referred, albeit briefly, to most of the many points which your Lordships have raised. Perhaps I may pick up one or two others as I come to give my final views on my own personal position.
The basic reason for my support for the televising of Parliament is a simple one. Television occupies a central role in our national life. If anyone doubts that, let them consider the increase in, and support for, all those sports and other activities of our national life which are televised. They become far more the centre of life than they were before. We also have to remember the many people who become household names through appearances on television programmes. That again shows that television is at the centre of our national life.

1251
If television's central role is accepted, then, in my reasoning, it follows that the nation's Parliament—the centre of our democracy, and admired throughout the world despite all its imperfections—will, in the end, either be televised and retain its central role or become increasingly irrelevant and disregarded, if it continues with its refusal to let the cameras in. I can respect the feelings of the noble Marquess, Lord Tweeddale, and others, but I do not agree with them.
I shall give one other example. It has never escaped my notice that Members of both Houses are far from shy about appearing on television to advance their views. Indeed, we often see, and will continue to see, the absurd situation when Members of both Houses take part in a debate inside Parliament and then rush out immediately afterwards to go over the same ground in a television studio—or even, until the new studios came along, on the green in Parliament Square. I cannot believe that that is a sound way of proceeding.
But as a supporter, I have also had to answer to my own satisfaction the strongly-held objections of those who fear that the cameras will destroy parliamentary debates as we know them. There is, first, the powerful argument that television does not offer just a window through which proceedings are viewed. Rather, by judicious use of the cameras, it can provide its own scene. My answer is, first, that some ground rules would have to be agreed with the producer. I understand the difficulty of doing so, but I understand that ground rules are agreed for many other television occasions—I know they are, and I believe that they should be. Secondly, I do not accept, as I have said, that the introduction of television has in any way damaged party conferences and political meetings at general elections: quite the reverse; it has improved them.
Then there are those who fear that the introduction of television cameras will distort our proceedings in either House of Parliament or even force changes against our will because they would be ridiculed as stuffy and archaic. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Strauss, had that feeling in his mind. I recognise the risk, but I do not believe that the viewing public will be scornful. My confidence was reinforced last Sunday when I watched the noble Viscount. Lord Tonypandy, explaining on television the procedures in another place with, if I may say so, great appeal, great dignity, and a considerable sense of humour—which I believe would have appealed to a great many people in the country, and would have done much to translate our proceedings to the general public.
Lastly, I cannot accept the fear of those who believe that instances of unseemly or unruly behaviour by a few will do serious harm to the reputation of Parliament. My experience of 28 years in another place, where such problems arise, is that people who are anxious on those grounds severely underestimate the corporate will of Parliament. It is true that some Members who start by refusing to accept traditional standards—perhaps in any House of Parliament—take longer to tame than others. But on the whole, they are tamed in the end.
For those reasons, I do not believe that television will undermine our parliamentary proceedings. Quite
1252
to the contrary, I personally am convinced that in the years to come the institution of Parliament will gain in understanding and esteem throughout the nation. That is why I am so grateful to my noble friend Lord Soames for introducing this Motion, and why I shall enthusiastically support it in the voting Lobby afterwards.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Soames: My Lords, I am deeply grateful to those of your Lordships who have taken part in this debate, which I believe has been thought to be interesting on all sides of the House. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend the Lord President of the Council and the Leader of the House for the great support he gave to the concept of televising the proceedings of the House. I know it is something he has believed in for a long period of his political life. Indeed, for quite a while he and I have thought as one on this question.
Of the difficulties expressed by noble Lords, I will refer to only one or two. One of them concerned the House of Commons. Here I will refer to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, if I may: that he did not want another experiment for we had already had an experiment. In fact, the experiment of some 15 years ago was an experiment involving closed-circuit television. It was going to lead on to a general experiment but, for reasons that we touched on earlier, it did not develop into that.
If your Lordships' House passes this Motion, it will go to the committee, who will come back after some months of deliberation and report to this House upon the detail and the substance of how this matter should be handled. Many ideas have been fed to them from today's debate about the kind of matters on which this House will be looking to hear from them when they do report.
I should like to think that the committee will report positively and that, after a period of time preparing for it to happen, there will be the period of experimentation which is asked for in the Motion. During that period of experimentation, and in the time before that, I hope that there will be every opportunity for discussion along the usual channels between the two Houses, and for the other place to give what consideration they feel like giving to the matter. It is to be hoped that we might end up with both Houses being televised. I do not know. What I do know is that there will be plenty of time to consider the matter. It will not be the first time that the lead has been given by this House to Parliament as a whole.
If the House approves the Motion, which I earnestly hope it will, a great responsibility will rest on the committee to answer all the questions raised in this debate, and many others besides. We must all wish the committee well. Also, I should not wish to sit down without saying how much I enjoyed the speech of my noble and very great friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil. He and I entered the House of Commons at about the same time some 30 years ago or more. I have listened to many of his speeches: they have all been as vigorous as the speech we have heard today—but I have never heard one with which I have disagreed more fundamentally. But he has shown in the way he put his points that we have a very good extra contributor to our debates in this House. My Lords, I beg to move.
7.48 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 74; Not-Contents, 24.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Ampthill, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Ardwick, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Aylestone, L.

Lawrence, L.

Baker, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Long, V.

Banks, L.

Lyell, L.

Belstead, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Bessborough, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Birk, B.

Marley, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Mishcon, L.

Caithness, E.

Morris, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mountevans, L.

Cathcart, E.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Collison, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Craigavon, V.

Onslow, E.

David, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Denham, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Diamond, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Elles, B.

Portsmouth, Bp.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Reay, L.

Erroll, E.

Reigate, L.

Ferrier, L.

Saltoun, Ly.

Feversham, L.

Sandys, L.

Fitt, L.

Savile, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Shackleton, L. [Teller.]

Glanusk, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Soames, L. [Teller.]

Hanson, L.

Spens, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hill of Luton, L.

Swann, L.

Holderness, L.

Swinton, E.

Howard of Henderskelfe, L.

Trumpington, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Underhill, L.

James of Rusholme, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Kennet. L.

Windlesham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Beloff, L. [Teller.]

McCluskey, L.

Bishopston, L.

Monson, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Burton, L.

Orkney, E.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Stallard, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Gridley, L.

Strauss, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L. [Teller.]

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Henley, L.

Tweeddale, M.

Jeger, B.

White, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.

Gas and Electricity Prices
7.58 p.m.
Baroness Burton of Coventry Baroness Burton of Coventry rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will re-examine their decision to increase prices of gas and electricity.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords. I want to speak first of all about the insensitivity of the Government. Apart from actual finance and actual hardship, to which I will come later. I believe that this lack of
1254
sensitivity is the most serious aspect of what we are discussing tonight.
I am wondering if it is impossible to make a breakthrough here, or can we convey to the Government, through the Minister who is to reply to this debate, just some of the feelings of the general public. It seems to me, leaving aside the rights and the wrongs of this matter, that the policy-makers are completely out of touch. Does the Minister not see that it is really very difficult for the ordinary domestic consumer to comprehend, let alone understand? In July we were told that British Gas had doubled its profits to £665 million, and while more and more consumers are finding it difficult to pay their bills, apparently the series of price rises had been so profitable to British Gas that in addition to the £665 million profit the board had paid a levy of £470 million to the Government. Indeed, in The Times of 27th July an article by its financial correspondent, Jonathan Davis, stated that the profits of the Gas Board,
"were greater than those of ICI, Beecham, and Marks & Spencer combined".
That, of course, was excellent. But what about the ordinary domestic consumer? Surely such results merit some reduction in price?
The Government just did not seem to understand that the many people having difficulty in paying their bills, and only managing to do so by effort and sacrifice elsewhere, were going to look askance at a profit that had doubled and to which they, the consumers, had all had to contribute. On top of that, the very possibility that prices should rise was adding insult to injury. It was just not good enough. I want to ask: do those who foot the bills have to pay more, however big the profits? While we domestic consumers may not be financial experts, it seemed to us that such an attitude was the economics of the madhouse.
We were supported in this view by a leader in the Guardian on 14th November. I wonder whether the Minister has read it. I wonder whether it is in his brief and whether he will be dealing with this nonsensical Government attitude tonight. The leader was headed:
"A tax by any other name".
I quote from the first paragraph:
"The Government says it is ruthlessly committed to curbing inflation, yet here it is about to impose unwanted price rises on nationalised industries which are already making profits large enough to bring into question their obligation to break even 'taking one year with another. 'The price rises are to be some 4 per cent. for gas and 3 per cent. for electricity coming shortly after the sharpest real increase in the price of these utilities for several decades. The Government's reasoning is apparently that the extra profits will help to curb its borrowing, which needs to be restrained if inflation is to be brought down. In short, the Government is proposing to bring prices down by putting them up. This is unlikely to be the most direct way of achieving its objective."
A further comment in that leader was to the effect that there is no rhyme or reason in this policy.
It has always been my understanding—and perhaps the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that we had a principle in this country that nationalised industry prices should not be regarded by the Treasury as just another tax. On this very point, I was glad to note that the National Gas Consumers' Council expressed "deep concern" that domestic and industrial gas prices were being forced up by the

1255
Treasury above the immediate needs of the industry itself. The Chairman of the Council, Miss Sheila Black, said:
"We are completely opposed to the use of British Gas as a milch cow."
I have noted the letter sent to Miss Sheila Black by the Secretary of State and included by him in the Commons Hansard for 28th November. But this does not deal with the point I have just made. What it does say very clearly—and more than once—is:
"The Government has no powers to impose price increases on the industry." [Official Report, Commons, 28/11/83; col. 425.]
We all know that, in reality, that that is complete nonsense. As the Economist remarked on 19th November under the heading:
"Market prices, or Ministers' ones?"
—it was asking that question—
"To help in holding down next year's public spending, the nationalised British Gas Corporation and the nationalised electricity supply industry are being set tighter financial targets so that they can produce a higher profit to be handed over to the Treasury."
Mr. Michael Barnes, chairman of the Electricity Consumers' Council, said that electricity prices should be held at their present levels until at least the beginning of 1985. He was commenting on the announcement that the electricity industry had made an operating profit of £868 million in 1982–83.
He continued:
"These profit figures are substantial and clearly show that the electricity industry has over-shot its financial target significantly. We are therefore calling on the industry to extend the existing price standstill beyond next April and at least till January 1985."
In The Times of yesterday I read:
"The Cabinet, before the autumn statement of Mr. Nigel Lawson, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, decided to increase the sum the Treasury will require from the industry by £322 million".
An increase for the Treasury of £322 million after an operating profit of £868 million last year! I hope that goes home to the British public. It is absolute financial nonsense so far as the consumers are concerned.
Are we supposed to he grateful that, following this operating profit of £868 million, the Electricity Council proposes,
"only a small increase midway through the next financial year"?
It appears that the comment in the Economist which I quoted was indeed correct.
What about industry itself? The CBI promptly condemned the rises as "bad news" and the Director General of the Associated British Chambers of Commerce, Mr. Tony New come, said:
"We are appalled by the Chancellor's decision to rake in more money for the Treasury from higher charges."
Furthermore, Mr. New come wrote to the Secretary of State to say that his members had reacted "sharply and angrily" to the proposal.
On the other side of the coin the Minister may call in aid the report commissioned from the accountants, Deloitte Haskins & Sells, on the efficiency of British Gas. Most of us will have noted their recommendations at that time, particularly the one saying that gas prices should be higher. I would only comment that obviously accountants are not in touch with public opinion or, to be fair, the brief probably did not require that they should be. I draw comfort from two points here. First, even the experts cannot agree on
1256
what the proper price for gas should be. Secondly, Mr. David Howell, the former Secretary of State for Energy who was responsible for the three-year crash programme of price rises, now says that enough is enough and that prices should be frozen. I gain some comfort from that.
I draw even more comfort from the report made by accountants Coopers and Lybrand. reported in the Financial Times of 1st December. I wonder what comment the Minister has to offer on the first three paragraphs by Mr. Ian Hargreaves in that paper, which are as follows:
"Electricity prices could be cut by as much as 7 per cent. and then be held stable for a period without damage to the supply industry, according to an independent report circulating in Whitehall.
"The report, by accountants Coopers and Lybrand. argues that the present formula used by the industry in setting electricity prices takes insufficient account of the gap in power station building caused by over-capacity.
"But the report says that if allowance is made for the gap in power station building, it would trim the industry's annual requirement by between £500 million and £700 million—a saving which could be passed on as lower prices."
As I expect the Minister knows, this report was commissioned by Mr. Nigel Lawson when he was Secretary of State for Energy.
It would be interesting to know the opinion of Mr. Walker, who is the present Secretary of State. on the article in The Times on 23rd August by Alex Henney, which was headed, "Give the watchdogs more bite". Without going into detail on the question of consumer councils in nationalised industry—a subject that the Government have every intention of avoiding for as long as possible—I would point out that the subject matter of the article was the American-style regulation on monopoly services. I wish to quote only two sentences:
"In New York last year, the regulatory commission ordered the private gas and electric utilities to return 104 million dollars excess profits to customers. Monopoly services in Britain are publicly owned and rarely give anything back."
The author of the article, Mr. Alex Henney, is chairman of the London Electricity Consultative Council and a board member of the London Electricity Board. Indeed, he wrote to The Times on 1st August in support of my original letter of 29th July.
Obviously a considerable amount of correspondence ensued. Some of it has been published, but most of it is in our respective files. There is not the time—and indeed the House would not wish it—to have a detailed discussion on these letters, but there is one that I wish to mention. It came from a correspondent describing himself as,
"a pensioner terrified of a cold winter".
He took the months June 1980, 1981, 1982 and 1983 as examples of the charge per therm and the quarterly standing charge levied on him each year. The price per therm started at 17·06p. It then went up to 21·29p, then to 27·20p, and in the last year. 1983, it was 33·50p. The quarterly standing charge started at £1·62, the next year it was £4·50, the following year, £7. and in 1983, £8·60. There is no need for your Lordships to remember those figures, but over three years the price per therm for this pensioner went up by 16.44p, or 96.4 per cent., and the quarterly standing charge by £6·98, or 431 per cent.
I included those figures in my letter to The Times. The newspaper was good enough to say that it hoped to use them, but it asked whether I was sure they were right, as they seemed so extraordinary. We got in touch with the writer and discovered that they were correct. I venture to hope that some of your Lordships might be sufficiently interested—or horrified—to turn up The Times for Saturday, 22nd October, where these facts are set out in a letter that I wrote, challenging the managing director, finance, British Gas Corporation, on his denial that he followed a high selling price policy. I hope very much that the Minister will he able to answer some of these points and will not just read the brief that he came into the Chamber with. His brief will not cover all these points.
In conclusion, I revert to my opening remarks. There is a blockage somewhere in the mind of the Government which prevents them from realising or understanding what ordinary people feel. They have no conception of what it is like for somebody who is struggling to pay these bills who knows that the winter is coming, who needs the heat and just does not know how he will be able to afford it. What is suggested by the Government is a fuel tax imposed on industries not needing the money, making huge profits, and inflicting unnecessary financial hardship on the general public, many of whom are, indeed, terrified not only of a cold winter, but of price rises that they cannot afford; and so they do without.
We have many financial experts in this House. Not one to whom I have spoken believes that these price rises are justified, or are even a wise policy. I should he glad if the Minister can answer this question, as it puzzles me. Does he consider that present consumers should foot the bill for generations to come? If he does, for how many generations should that apply? I should be glad if the Minister would answer that. I have never heard the Government state their position.
Finally, whatever his reply tonight, I must ask the Under-Secretary to draw the attention of the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, to this debate, not of course in the latter's capacity as Leader of this House, but as the overlord or chairman, of the special ministerial committee which is deciding great financial issues for this country. Those of us who know the noble Viscount arc quite sure that he will regard unjust financial hardship for ordinary members of the community as for him a problem every bit as serious as what might be termed more important matters. We hope that the noble Viscount will feel able to look at what we have said on behalf of the many poeple who are deeply worried about what they see as an unfair imposition in the form of a fuel tax, and who have come to us for help.
8.16 p.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I rise from these Benches, having for a great many years been a keen supporter of the Consumer Council and consumer policy generally. We could not have heard a better or more complete analysis of the situation in regard to the gas industry than we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry. In my opinion she is one of the greatest exponents of the feelings and views of consumers in any House of
1258
Parliament anywhere. I follow her with great humility, but I entirely support her on all this.
Being a great supporter of this Government, I do not like to make critical statements, but I do so tonight, as I am speaking for the consumer. Strangely enough, in my house I use gas for almost everything. I have gas heaters, cookers, and almost everything else. The only things which I have that are electric are the lights. I am a heavy user of gas and a strong supporter of gas consumers and of the industry.
I do not understand why, when we have a successful and well run industry which is supplying what people want and is making big profits, the price must go up. The noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, has put the point clearly. If a private, ordinary business, such as Marks and Spencer, or ICI, made those great profits. it would distribute them in dividends to those who had invested their money. It would not put up the price: it would distribute the profits. Admittedly, industries such as gas and electricity are slightly different, but the principle is surely the same. When a successful industry makes high profits, that is the moment to pass something on to the consumer. In this case a lower price should be passed on. That would not injure the industry in any way. It would probably mean that more people used and paid for gas, and consumption was increased, which in itself would be useful for the gas industry.
There is something strange in the theory which appears to be put forward by the Treasury, or whoever, that when something is very successful, a tax is instantly imposed. so that it becomes less successful. It is wrong to use the gas industry and its profits to impose a fuel tax. A fuel tax is not something that should be paid by the ordinary people consuming the fuel. That is something altogether different. If this kind of policy were adopted by the Government or by industry it would kill the enterprise of businesses; businesses which, on the whole, we all want to help, since without encouraging business, without increasing opportunities for employment, we are only injuring our country in a way in which I personally, and I am sure everybody else, will very much oppose.
If this is a way of increasing taxation, then I think it is very' unwise indeed. We do not want to increase taxation; if we possibly can, we want to lower taxation. That would help to restrict inflation. One suddenly finds oneself with the position which has been described most eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, and in the letters which she has referred to. I have read a certain number of them, but not the ones which appered only yesterday or the day before, and they do indeed accurately describe the very bad principle involved in this particular matter.
Increases in gas or electricity prices hit every single person, and some can afford to pay them more than others. They hit harder than anybody else old people and the people who have small incomes; although these are the people we do not want to hit. These are the people we want to try to help if we possibly can. I hope the Government will look at this again; not increase this taxation, not increase the price of gas, but enable us to be fairer and have a fairer distribution to consumers in a way which would he wise, sensible and fair. I think this particular form of taxation is most unfair and most unwise.
8.22 p.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I apologise to the House for being late to listen to everything that has already been said in this debate. I know your Lordships understand that I have participated in Questions on this particular subject matter of increases in the price of gas and electricity. In the very short contribution I wish to make I want to ask the Government whether they will bear in mind—and the probability is that the point has already been made—that these increases in charges have not in any way been requested by the administrators in charge of these publicly owned industries. We realise that the party opposite is almost pathologically opposed to anything that is publicly owned, except the police, the Army, the Navy and the Air Force, and to anything else which contributes fundamentally, as these great industries have, to the economy of Great Britain.
Many of us are still young enough to remember the experience of something like 290 privately-owned electricity organisations which could not get electricity to British farmers; when the gas organisations could in no way get gas to the outskirts of our great cities. But it took the same endeavour which constructed our mighty defence organisations to see to it that British hillside farmers could get electricity and that outlying districts could he supplied with gas.
Now we have the discovery of North Sea gas. The point is that ordinary people contributed to these great ventures. North Sea gas has become almost a shareholder, as I understand it, in North Sea oil. I could readily understand it if a Government made requests of the chairmen and the boards of direction of these great industries about massive expense such as occurs in, say, the coal industry. In the capitalist system expense means money, not human beings: not shot firers, not coal miners, not those who are damaged for life, not those who are slain outright. One realises that before the war we were slaying coal miners at the rate of 400 a year. What would be said if we were killing doctors and school teachers at the rate of 400 a year?
We have seen this magnificent endeavour. I had thought that the whole principle of the public ownership of these great industries was finished and done with. We acknowledge that they are there to help people. Then suddenly we are faced with this distressing and disturbing news. It would be really distressing and disturbing if we had to face the fact that they were in financial difficulty. The argument of the Government would have been that everybody had got to contribute to help the gas industry and the electricity industries to get on their feet. If that were so, one could to a degree understand it; but that is not the case. Not so very long ago justified criticism was being made because the profits of the gas board were so enormous, particularly from their entrepreneurial endeavours in regard to North Sea oil.
The last time that gas prices were increased it was also ludicrous, and it was a very unhappy situation because it coincided with the Government making tax reliefs for the very wealthy while pushing up gas and electricity charges for the rest of the community.
The gravamen of my submission tonight is this. I do not want to hear arguments that the old and infirm
1260
who need to be kept warm can get supplementary benefits; I think that is an appalling argument to put to the old-age pensioners of this country who have made their contribution in their youth, in their middle age and in their latter years. It is not only an indignity, but they feel it an embarrassment that in Great Britain in 1983 they have to subject themselves to some form of supplementary benefit to keep warm in winter.
I listened some time ago to a speech which struck very hard within me. It ws a speech of one of the most experienced Britons (in a variety of ways) in this land today: I refer to the noble Lord. Lord Hill of Luton. I do not suppose for one moment that he is personally particularly worried about increases in charges for electricity and gas. The thing that makes me so proud to be in this place is to know that we can still produce people like the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, who probably personally is not too much affected but who at least can come here and make the point that for tens of thousands of old people this is going to be a difficulty: and it is on that particular aspect that I await the reply of the Minister.
This is not a crowded Chamber; this is not a burning issue like the televising of Parliament. But I can tell the Minister this. There are tens of thousands of old people from John o' Groats to Lands' End who will hope that there will be some tiny semblance of compassion in the attitude of the Government today with regard to these proposals. It may not be too late for them to be abandoned. There is no reason whatever for the increases: the industries do not want them: the old-age pensioners do not want them. I have no evidence, but I should like to say in conclusion that I believe, after examining the situation, that the mass of ordinary people of these islands do not want them to be inflicted on the old of our country. It does not matter what excuses are given with regard to supplementary benefit. There is no need to subject so many of our fellow Britons to this form of indignity. The Government should drop the proposals.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Hill of Luton: My Lords, we are indebted to the noble Baroness. Lady Burton of Coventry, not for the first time, for raising a very important issue affecting ordinary people. I want to base what I say on a physiological fact. It is that the regulatory system of some people, usually young or old, is very much less capable of resisting coldness than that of normally healthy people of middle years. The result of that failure to react as the remainder of healthy people do may well be hypothermia—a relatively new word that has been used in the medical press to describe this condition only over the last 15 or 20 years. The sufferers from hypothermia are likely to be those on low incomes and living alone.
Of every 100 cases of hypothermia reported 85 are old people. These are the people who may suffer—I am choosing my words carefully—from hypothermia, which can be a most dangerous or a fatal condition, when their expenditure on fuel has to increase as are sult of higher prices. It may be argued that they could economise in other fields. But we are speaking of people on low incomes who have no other fields that are ripe for economy. The reduction therefore is likely to be a reduction in expenditure on fuel. Expressed another way, any rise in fuel costs for these elderly

1261
people—often elderly and sick—without a compensatory increase in their incomes adds to the danger of hypothermia.
This leads me to put a question to the Minister who is to reply. In the light of the physiological facts, do the Government intend to increase social security payments to compensate for increases in fuel costs which lessen the capacity of the poor and elderly to buy fuel? This consideration applies whether the increase is in gas or electricity prices or both. I simply do not know whether the rumour in the press about the abolition of the proposed higher charges for electricity for the time being is true. Whether the increase is for one sort of fuel or the other, there is a danger to the health of people who have to make economies in their expenditure on the fuel.
The first question is this. Do the Government intend to introduce a compensatory increase in social security rates to meet this increase in fuel costs for the poor and elderly? If not, what other remedies do they propose to avoid the risk of hypothermia in some old people? This is the crucial question. It is no good saying in reply, "Ah, but in the past month or so social security payments have risen in accordance with the cost of living or pensions have increased in accordance with the cost of living". Those payments have increased because of the cost of living. There is no compensation for the inevitable increased expenditure on fuel by these people.
The second question is of a more general character. If the Government need additional income, why not use the fairer method of taxation in relation to people's incomes instead of adding to the pains and strains of old people? My third point relates to a Question that I put down to which an Answer was recently given. It concerned the case of an old lady of 85, nearly blind, who had suffered a £1·90 decrease in her income as a result—to many of us, the unexpected result—of the regulation passed in Parliament a year ago. I am glad to say that there was a satisfactory outcome in that case. The local authority reached the conclusion that the old lady needed more heating than the general level of heating it provided for its tenants and certified that fact to the DHSS. Immediately the drop in pension was restored and back money was paid. I therefore wish to ask the Minister this: will the appropriate Minister advise local authorities, wherever they have a case of someone whose heating needs are exceptional and above those that are normally necessary, to notify the DHSS local office so that the problem can be solved? Should not that procedure be generally known and generally recommended in order to avoid decreases of income for a particular group of people with requirements for heating over and above the average requirement? I should be grateful if the Minister can say whether that can be done as a partial, but not a complete, solution to the problem.
The Government must realise that, if there is insufficient fuel, the danger to old people is real. There must be compensatory payments to such people. I am not referring to increases in relation to the cost of living that have been given for everyone in this category and outside. I therefore say to the Minister that increased fuel costs—again, I choose my words carefully—for elderly and poor people without steps being taken to
1262
protect them from the danger of hypothermia following upon insufficient fuel, is just not good enough in a civilised country.
8.39 p.m.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, for drawing our attention to some of the problems relating to fuel in this country today. The noble Baroness, as we know, is an absolute expert in your Lordships' House on consumer affairs. The hard-hitting speech to which we have listened this evening was one that we are used to hearing. The noble Baroness never minces her words; she is always on target. I personally always enjoy what she says, although I do not always agree with it.
The noble Baroness has given figures this evening for the increases in both industries. I have tried to find out what the increases are likely to be, but I was told that they had not yet been settled. Therefore, I do not quite know who is holding out on me, or who is giving the noble Baroness information that perhaps has not yet been agreed.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. I quoted from one of the newspapers; I do not know whether it was the Guardian or perhaps the Financial Times.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, the few remarks that I wish to make this evening—and they will be few—are made in my capacity, some years ago, as the first chairman of the Gas Consumers' Council. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I cannot allude to the Electricity Council although I was aware, in those years, of what it was doing. However, I obviously had more knowledge of what the Gas Consumers' Council, and British Gas in particular, were thinking.
I should like at the beginning of my brief remarks to pay a tribute to British Gas. I had five particularly helpful years knowing what it was doing and I came away realising that it was one of the most efficient industries in this country. It was a cost-effective and also a very caring industry. There has not been an increase in gas prices since 1982 and gas is still the cheapest fuel. Indeed, it is one of the cheapest fuels in Europe. The increase in charges—whatever the cost must be—must obviously be borne by the consumer. Even the ever-increasing wages bill has to be met and the new gas supplies which have to be found also have to paid for. I submit that a gradual increase is very much better for the consumer than the artificial holding down of prices which, during the previous Government, led to the British Gas Corporation making a loss on sales of gas to the home.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, who has much expertise in this matter, many of us are worried about the possible deaths due to hypothermia which are causing concern in the country at the moment. But it has not been brought to your Lordships' notice that in October 1982 the Secretary of State announced that the gas and electricity industries had agreed to commission independent reviews of their standing charges. One of the results of the findings is that British Gas has decided to introduce a standing charge rebate

1263
scheme for tariff customers who use small quantities of gas. The concessions on standing charges will, it is estimated, benefit about I million customers and will cost British Gas about £2 million in a full year. For the credit customers and the pre-payment meter customers, where the standing charge is greater than the charge for therms supplied, there will be a rebate to bring the standing charge down. I submit that that in itself should go a long way to allay the fears of elderly people who live alone and who use very litttle gas.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I acknowledge that the noble Baroness does her homework very thoroughly indeed. But is she aware that, notwithstanding the very telling argument that she has just put forward, last year British Gas made a profit of £660 million, so the £2 million it is going to give away is absolutely trivial?
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, the noble Lord is entitled to his opinion.
As we all know, the social services are empowered to help in cases of need. They were able to do so when I was chairman of the Gas Consumers' Council. Indeed, I should like to take a little bit of' credit, because I was instrumental in getting that through. However, I should like to know from my noble friend the Minister whether the electricity industry is making the same provisions. As I have said, British Gas is a very caring industry and the consumers' council, as I am sure the noble Baroness would agree, is an excellent watchdog. It monitors the industry to ensure that it is as efficient as possible.
From what I have said this evening I hope that the Minister will he able to allay some of the fears of the older people in our society for whom everyone in this House, on all sides, cares very deeply. Again, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for introducing this subject.
8.46 p.m.
Lord Banks: My Lords, I must apologise to the House for the fact that my name is not on the list of speakers, but I withdrew it when it seemed likely that the previous debate would end so late that I would be unable to he present. However, I under-estimated the restraint which noble Lords are capable of exercising on occasion. I should like to join in thanking my noble friend Lady Burton for raising this important Question this evening, and I should like also to support her plea that gas and electricity prices should not rise—a plea I think supported by most of the other speakers who have joined in the debate.
At the time that the autumn Statement was made it was understood that the Government were suggesting that there should be an increase in gas prices of 5 per cent. and in electricity prices of 3 per cent. Of course ultimately the industries decide their own prices, but the influence which the Government are able to exercise on the industries through the financial targets which they set, and the performance aims which they set out, usually tends to be paramount.
However, according to the press, it would appear that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Energy have had some measure of disagreement, which may have altered the situation. It
1264
is now suggested in some reports that there will be no increases at least for nine months in electricity prices, and we read that the gas industry has attained financial targets over a four-year period. That represents a settled financial regime which may not affect the prices that the Government are suggesting they should charge, but it is in itself an advance, since they have not had such a regime since last April. I am sure that we shall look to the reply by the noble Earl for further clarification on these particular matters.
In considering whether prices should rise, we have to bear in mind a number of matters. First, we have to bear in mind how prices have already risen in recent years. If we take the period from January 1974 to April 1983, we find that prices generally—all prices—have risen by 233 per cent.; earnings have risen by 246 per cent.; gas prices by 274 per cent.; and electricity prices by 392 per cent. So over that period of some nine years both gas and electricity prices have risen faster than earnings and the general level of prices.
If we take a shorter period of time—the period during which the present Government have been responsible for our affairs—from May 1979 to September 1983, we find that the retail price index has risen by 57 per cent.; electricity prices by 83 per cent.; and gas prices by 122 per cent. That period of course includes the period to which reference has already been made when the Government requested that for three years prices should be increased at 10 per cent. above the rate of inflation.
Having considered how prices have risen, and having discovered that they have risen quite considerably and faster than the general level of prices whether we take nine years or three years as the period of time by which we are judging, we then have to consider what the profits have been, and these have already been mentioned: some £330 million last year for electricity and some £660 million for gas, after a levy of £530 million had been imposed by the Government, which makes the total of £1,190 million.
Then, as several noble Lords have pointed out, we have to consider the effect on the poorest, because fuel is a very important item in the budget of the lowest income groups. Low income pensioners and lone parents spend roughly twice as much of their income on fuel as people on average incomes. The noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, has referred with authority to the problem of hypothermia, and experts tell us that before next spring arrives we can reliably expect cold homes to have caused the death of 44,000 people over the age of 50 and 500 babies under a year old.
Disconnections are still running at 120,000 a year; 214,000 households have deductions from their supplementary benefit for fuel arrears; and a further 500,000 gas customers and about 600,000 electricity customers are paying off arrears through other arrangements. The Government are spending some £350 million on heating additions, but only about 65 per cent. of supplementary benefit claimants get these additions, and those not on supplementary benefit and only marginally above the supplementary benefit level do not qualify for the heating addition. Altogether fuel poverty is a serious-problem.
Then we have to consider the effect on industry. I must confess that I find it difficult to get accurate

1265
comparisons, but at least some countries have cheaper fuel than we do in this country, and there is a danger that an increase in United Kingdom prices will put United Kingdom industrialists at a disadvantage—that a gap that was perceived earlier on will open up again. We are a large producer of energy and it would seem absurd that industrialists in other countries should have an advantage over our own in this particular field.
Against these arguments, it is argued that we must increase the price in order to promote conservation, although experience would seem to suggest that price is not a good weapon for this purpose. Then there is the problem referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, about the increasing extraction costs and whether prices should rise in order to take account of them. I think that profits of the size that we have been considering are sufficient to absorb—at any rate for the time being as far as one can see—any extra costs which undoubtedly will occur on those grounds.
An argument which is made by the Government is that the return on capital as it is at the moment is not satisfactory. In the gas industry there were profits of £660 million after a levy of £530 million. Yet Mr. Walker, the Secretary of State for Energy, speaks of a profit of £188 million on a capital of £12 billion. That capital of £12 billion was described in the Economist as "complicatedly calculated capital", and we have to bear in mind the effects of current cost accounting and the historic method when we are looking at that figure of £12 billion. If one takes £188 million on £12 billion the return is 1·6 per cent. which perhaps does not sound very great, but that £188 million is after the deduction of £295 million for the sale of assets which were forced on the industry by the Government. It is also after the payment of some £208 million in tax, which the Government get anyway.
The return, before allowing for the sale of assets, before allowing for this tax of £208 million and before allowing for the gas levy of £530 million was 57 per cent., and that seems satisfactory to me. I should have thought that consumers are paying enough to provide a reasonable return and are making a substantial contribution in tax at the same time.
My noble friend Lady Burton referred to the report commissioned from the accountants, Coopers and Lybrand, by Mr. Lawson when he was Secretary of State for Energy, and the fact that that report suggested that electricity prices should be cut—not raised—by 7 per cent. For all these reasons—for the sake of the poorest, for the sake of British industry and for the sake of the general body of consumers—in view of the profits earned and the taxation paid, I urge the Government not to seek higher gas and electricity prices.
8.56 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I too am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, for raising this subject tonight, which is of great concern to domestic, industrial and commercial consumers of gas and electricity alike. I think it is unfortunate that the preceding candyfloss debate which has just ended has overshadowed this debate, which deals with the very real and acute problems that so many people have as a result of high
1266
heating costs. It really matters not one jot whether or not the proceedings of this House are televised. On the other hand, inadequate heating can be a matter of life or death for some.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, said, the Government have shown awful insensitivity in this matter; the public have the spectacle of the gas and electricity industries making large profits and at the same time forcing further increases in prices down the throats of the consumers. I have to agree—and I am sure that the House will agree—that the Government's handling of the fuel industries and, indeed, of the prices charged for electricity and gas has been appalling. The bitter quarrel between the Energy Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been an unedifying spectacle, to say the least. I think that perhaps we are bound to have a sneaking sympathy for the Energy Secretary, Mr. Walker, who returned from his recent visit to China only to find that, while his back was turned, the gas and electricity industries had been ripped off by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for his own particular ends.
The decision of the Government to force increases in gas and electricity prices has been universally condemned not only in this House tonight but in another place, by the consumer organisations and also by industry. I am sure that noble Lords will have heard what Sir Terence Beckett said on the "World At One"—and if they did not hear him on the "World At One", they will have read what he said in the newspapers—about the increases in energy prices. What he had to say was that the increases in fuel charges would be extremely bad for industry and, indeed, may very well send some industries to the wall just at a time when, far from wanting to destroy our industrial potential, we should he building it up.
Undoubtedly, the price increases which are completely unnecessary in terms of the financial viability of the gas and electricity industries, as we have heard from many noble Lords tonight, will cause particular hardship to the old, the poor and the deprived. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Hill, with his expertise in this subject, made it clear that the physiological characteristics of the very old and the very young made them subject to hypothermia, and that these people were in real danger. I believe that the Government should listen to that expert warning, and indeed answer the very real and pertinent questions which the noble Lord put to the Government tonight. What in fact are the Government going to do, particularly if it is a hard winter, to save these people from hypothermia as a result of already high and rising fuel prices?
I am sure that noble Lords who are here will have seen the press release which was issued—in fact it is a report called Cold Homes—so I shall not read it in its entirety, but I should like to quote some of the things that it says. First:
"Before next spring arrives we can reliably expect cold homes to have caused the deaths of 44,000 people over 50 and 500 babies under a year old. If it is a hard winter more will die".
It goes on to say:
"This is real poverty in 'civilised' Britain in 1983. Those men, women and babies who arc physically vulnerable by their age or disability will die simply because their leaking homes cannot be heated by their low incomes at today's energy prices".

1267
We have already heard from the noble Lord, Lord Banks. that disconnections are running at a very high level, and, in terms of long-term disconnections, 21,000—one-fifth of all electricity cut-offs—are without supply for a month or more. Many of those disconnections involve families with young children. What is more, in their outgoings those people—and they are usually old people and young people who are forced to remain at home and do not enjoy freewarmth at work—spend a percentage of their total expenditure on fuel costs which is twice the average and nearly three times the proportion spent by the richest. But, despite the high proportion of their expenditure, they still only purchase 57 per cent. of the fuel bought by the richest. That of course is a very good reason again why the strictures and the demands of the noble Lord, Lord Hill, should be treated seriously by the Government tonight.
These increases in prices are undoubtedly a furthermean tax on the poor in order that the Chancellor shall be able to store up future tax cuts in favour of the already rich or the well-off. Furthermore, as we have already noted, the unfavourable position of old people and others on supplementary benefit has been further compounded by the muddle and administrative chaos over combined housing benefit and the new regulations, which have reduced overall supplementary benefit for some claimants by up to £2 a week. That again was a point noted last Thursday at Question Time by the noble Lord, Lord Hill.
It is also a fact that many people who would qualify for additional heating allowance do not claim it because they cannot find their way around the complicated regulations. The Department of Health and Social Security ought to do more to identify those who need additional heating, and I hope that the Minister will be able to announce tonight that that is precisely what is going to happen.
I want to come now to the treatment of the gas and electricity industries by the present Government. They have in fact since 1979 used these industries as milch cows. In fact, my noble friend Lord Molloy mentioned that the Government do not like the nationalised industries, although in fact they will use them for their benefit. But of course the Government cannot lose on this. On the one hand they criticise the nationalised industries when they make losses, and when they make profits they use them for taxation so that the Government are always on a good wicket in this respect.
Now the electricity industry, in which I at one time worked, in particular has had to bear the consequences of twists in Government policy over a long period of time. For example, the switch from coal to oil-fired power stations now involves the industry in carrying loan charges on hundreds of millions of pounds of capital lying idle due to the mothballing of oil-fired stations following the oil price crisis. There has been also over-concern for security of supply, coupled with the present Government's economic policy, which has severely reduced industrial production, led to a severe drop in demand for electricity and saddled the electricity supply industry with 60 per cent. more capacity than it actually needs to run the system and produce reasonable security of supply to consumers.
1268
To foist a negative EFL—because an external financing limit is what it amounts to—of £740 million on the electricity industry, which has been so buffeted by events and Government interference, is quite intolerable, particularly when that negative EFL is going to force up prices, although one has to say that, according to the latest press reports, the electricity supply industry has decided to defy the Government and to hold prices for 9 months. Good for them! The Government. I guess, will not dare to introduce the legislation which would be necessary if they wished to force the electricity supply industry to comply with their policy of increased fuel prices.
However, that negative EFL of £740 million will injure the capacity of the electricity supply industry to hold prices for an even longer period, which is really necessary not only to assist domestic and industrial consumers but also to get the industry itself hack on its feet. We have already heard about the report of Coopers and Lybrand, which suggests that because the electricity industry has such a large amount of surplus capacity which will carry on for the next decade, prices, far from being increased, should he reduced by as much as 7 per cent. That would not only help consumers, that would help the electricity supply industry to make use of that 30 per cent. of spare capacity that it has at the present time, and that would be good for us all.
I should also point out that it is not only the Electricity Council which is against the increases in prices. As my noble friend pointed out, the industries themselves do not want these increases—neither the gas nor the electricity industry. But it is not only the Electricity Council that does not want the increases; the trade unions in the industry are also against the increases, and have written to the Secretary of State and the Electricity Council urging that the increases should not be applied.
In the gas industry there has been an even greater blatant raiding by the Government of the coffers of that industry at the expense of the gas consumer. Indeed, the extent of the raids is almost unbelievable. We have heard about those raids from the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry. We have heard about them from the noble Lord, Lord Banks. We have had criticism from the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, and from the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, about the use of these industries as a means of taxation. Indeed, the extent of the raids is almost unbelievable.
That Her Majesty's Government have been able to get away with their depredations for so long is due to the complexity of the industry's finances and the public's inability to probe the accounts thoroughly. The noble Lord, Lord Banks, has obviously been able to probe, because he gave us some very interesting figures tonight. But in stark terms the Government have enforced the transfer of over £1,000 million from the Gas Corporation to the Exchequer since 1980. In 1982–83 alone, according to the Gas Corporation, the amount transferred was £600 million and that is equal to the total annual revenue from capital gains tax. The Government are getting as much from the gas consumer in one year as they are from people who can well afford to pay tax in respect of capital gains that are made—that is after the £5,300 a year exemption.

1269
Transfers of this order—we must not forget this—will continue in the future because the gas levy will continue unless the Government removes it. Let us make no mistake about it. This is a straight tax on gas consumers and it amounts to 4 pence per therm on gas prices, which is roughly a 12 per cent. tax on every therm sold. That is the extent.
In a letter to Miss Sheila Black, the chairman of the National Gas Consumers' Council, the Secretary of State seeks to justify the gas levy in the following terms—and I shall quote from Hansard. This letter has already been mentioned once this evening. It states:
"The position is simply that the BGC will continue to purchase some gas from early North Sea discoveries, which are exempt for Petroleum Revenue Tax (PRT), at well below its current market value. If the Government had taken no action the Corporation would, as a result, have made large excess profits. The Government therefore decided to introduce a levy to transfer the windfall from British Gas to the nation as a whole, in much the same way as PRT does for oil and newer gas supplies". [Official Report, Commons 28/11/83; col. 425.]
That sounds reasonable until we consider the figures. Let us examine the attempted justification of the gas levy as being in lieu of PRT. The gas levy netted by the Government is as follows: £129 million in 1981–82; £394million in 1982–83; and £600 million in 1983–84, making a grand total to date of £1,123 million.
Estimates in the annual public expenditure White Paper of cost to the Government of exemption of taxes from North Sea gas fields under pre-1975 contracts showed that the Gas Corporation would have been paid, in 1979, £15 million petroleum revenue tax; in 1980–81, £10 million in petroleum revenue tax; and, in 1981–82, £50 million in petroleum tax and£50 million in special petroleum duty. So the total for the three years would have been £125 million. Therefore British Gas has paid over £1,000 million more in tax than if it had paid petroleum revenue tax and special petroleum duty. It is ironical, and quite inequitable, that British Gas should be taxed to the hilt at the same time as the present Government are relieving the oil companies of royalties which will cost the Government thousands of millions of pounds in lost revenue in future years.
But that is not the end of the sad story of raids on the Gas Corporation's assets. As the noble Lord, Lord Banks, pointed out, from a reading of the accounts for 1982–83, it would seem that the Government intend that proceeds from the enforced sale of British Gas assets of off-shore and in-shore oil will be transferred to the Exchequer, instead of remaining with the Gas Corporation for the benefit of the gas consumers. But for the provisions of this transfer of funds to the Government, British Gas would have earned, it is true, a rate of 5·7 per cent.—well above the Government target. It seems that we have a case of privatisation without compensation. It seems to be not nationalisation without compensation, but privatisation without compensation. But for these impositions by the Government, the Gas Corporation could cut the cost of gas by 10 per cent. and still be able to earn a reasonable return on net assets employed. That is the extent of what the Government are doing to the industry.
1270
A great deal more could be said if the time were available, and I should in particular have liked to deal with the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, about long-run, marginal-cost pricing. However, I would merely remind her that the Commons Select Committee on Energy considered this matter in its second report on industrial energy pricing policy. I had the honour to be a member of the committee when it considered the matter. Its conclusion was:
"For all these reasons, we are not convinced that Long Run Marginal Cost Pricing, as advocated by the Government, is either efficient or sustainable as a method of pricing energy".
So in fact the committee came out against that principle because it believed that it was wrong that the consumer of today should pay for the consumer of the future. Instead, the committee favoured some system of average cost pricing. So the Commons Select Committee on Energy is on the side of the noble Baroness.
As I have said, a great deal more could be said, but there is not the time this evening. However, sufficient has been said by the speakers in this debate—and all speeches tonight have been excellent, to the point, and very knowledgable—to show that Government policy on gas and electricity prices is, to say the least, misguided and injurious, in particular to the poor and to industry.
The only fuel policy that the Government have is to jack-up fuel prices beyond the maximum which the market can bear and, by so doing, encourage both higher wage demands and inflation. They should abandon this policy and, instead, adopt an integrated rational fuel policy combined with conservation measures. They should make a start by abandoning these most recent impositions, and that would lead to a freeze on gas and electricity prices for at least a year, if not longer. As we have already said, if the Government really wanted to do so, they could cut the prices of these fuels, with great benefit to the consumer and to the country as a whole.
9.19 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy (The Earl of Avon): My Lords, I should like to join in the general warmth of welcome to the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, for raising this matter tonight. Having listened to the various speeches I think that it is very timely that the Government should put on record how they stand at the moment. I should like to say a little more about the timing, but unfortunately it is a little early on actually to know how to refer to some of the points made by the noble Baroness.
I find myself in some difficulty with the noble Baroness because she quotes from newspapers. For very many years of my life, I have never believed a word that I have read in the papers and, having listened to some of the comments tonight, I am still in that particular frame of mind. The noble Baroness—and, I think, speakers from other parts of the House—referred, for instance, to the Coopers and Lybrand report. That was an internal document in the department, commissioned, as was rightly said, in 1982. As far as I know, it has not as yet been published. It has some commercial confidentiality within it, and it is therefore unlikely that we shall be able to publish it. Therefore, the leaks that one reads

1271
about it, I am afraid, have to be taken with a pinch of salt: they are not accurate.
The noble Baroness referred at one stage to Mr. Alex Henney, who is indeed well-known to me. He is, for instance, a member of the London Electricity Board and, through his own council, can always make his views known through Mr. Barnes, to whom the noble Baroness also referred, who is the chairman of the Electricity Consultative Council.
I indeed recognise that concern has arisen over the possibility of increases in gas and electricity prices, and I hope now to be able to assist. Last month, the Government announced the external financing limits for the gas and electricity industries for next year, and many commentators have interpreted this as a decision on gas and electricity prices. In fact, this is not the case: prices are determined by the industries concerned, and the Government have neither the power nor the wish to impose price changes on the industries. I understand that the industries have taken no final decisions on prices for next year. But I cansay that present indications are that, if any increases are announced by the industries in the normal way after consultation with their consumer councils, they should be below the rate of inflation.
In the case of gas prices, it is important to understand the reasons why the corporation have indicated that a modest increase is necessary. The corporation has a creditable record in reducing controllable onshore costs—it has already been referred to—such as, pipelines, vehicles, labour, equipment and so on. These actually fell by 5 per cent. in real terms in 1982–83, as compared with 1980–81. Since many of these costs are included in the standing charge, I hope that these savings will feed through to the benefit of consumers by allowing the corporation to hold these charges for the present. But other costs—and this is the point—particularly the cost of new gas supplies, are rising. For example, it is often forgotten that nearly a quarter of our gas supplies have to be imported at prices which are four to five times the price of the original Southern Basin supplies.
The corporation must take account of these trends in setting prices. If it did not, we should soon be hack to the situation under the last Labour Government, where artificial holding down of prices led to the BGC making losses on sales of gas to the home. That would be bad for the corporation, bad for the taxpayer and, in the long run. bad for consumers—
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the noble Earl allow me to intervene?
The Earl of Avon: No, my Lords, I will not for the moment. The noble Lord was not present during the opening speeches and I think he can, at least, sit down and listen to my arguments. If I may repeat what I said, that would be bad for the corporation, bad for the taxpayer and, in the long run, bad for consumers, who would be receiving unrealistic signals about the true cost of consumption.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl for giving way, and I thank him very much
1272
indeed. I do not know who wrote the speech that he is reading—which civil servant it was. I have heard some appalling bloomers in civil servant-written speeches spouted from Dispatch Boxes. But does the noble Earl realise that it is a fact that over the past two years electricity prices have increased by 43 per cent. above the inflation level and gas prices have increased by nearly 90 per cent. above inflation? Those are the facts. He cannot say now whether I am right or wrong, but I am willing for that to go on the record and he can contradict me at any future time and say that I am wrong.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I shall contradict the noble Lord right now. He is wrong. They have not. Neither of those two prices has increased by the amount which the noble Lord said. If he will let me develop my argument, I shall come on to how much they have gone up, and if he listens he will know.
That then is the corporation's case. I understand that the National Gas Consumers' Council—which is a farsighted and responsible organisation—accepts that a modest increase in gas prices is justified. Certainly, no one could argue with the view that a steady and consistent approach to pricing is much to he preferred to holding down prices artificially, which is inevitably followed by large catching-up increases of the type which have been necessary in recent years. Prices to the domestic consumer have not risen—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the noble Earl give way?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords. I shall not get very far at this rate.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: No, my Lords, that is quite true. The noble Earl has just said that it was wrong to hold down prices artificially, but was it not equally wrong to increase prices artificially in 1980, 1981 and 1982 by means of the gas levy?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the noble Lord has made two different points. We increased prices by 10 per cent. over each of the three years. That was not the gas levy. The three prices rises of 10 per cent. were too ffset the holding back of prices by the previous Labour Government. It is a different point. Then there is the gas levy on top. I shall be turning to many of these points. Then noble Lords can come back to me on them, if they wish to do so.
Prices to the domestic consumer have not risen since October 1982. There has therefore been a standstill of over 14 months for the ordinary consumer. Industrial contract prices have been frozen since April 1982 and renewal terms have risen by only about 3½ to 4per cent. since the end of 1980. Earlier today I was informed that the corporation expect to be able to extend this price freeze until April 1984. I am sure that noble Lords and industry will welcome this news (the noble Lord, Lord Banks, referred to industry) which means that industrial contract prices will have been frozen for two years at a time when prices abroad have been rising steadily. This can only be good for our industrial competitiveness and hence for jobs.

1273
In the case of electricity, the freeze on prices this year means that electricity prices in real terms are about 5 per cent. lower than they were last year. The prospects for prices next year are also good. The Electricity Council, as I indicated earlier, have not yet made any announcement. I understand that at present they are considering how to meet the external financing limit announced by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
I believe that this is all good news. I hope that it will help to dispel the gloom and dismay with which some noble Lords seem to face this prospect. There is a tendency—
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, the noble Earl the Minister has been interrupted many times but he has just said something which I cannot follow. I understood him to say that prices had fallen in real terms and were less than they were last year. Does the noble Earl pay gas and electricity bills? Do they ever come his way? Mine have not gone down.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the mathematics of the noble Baronessare so difficult that it is hard for me to know where to start. There was no change in the price of electricity over the last 12 months. Would the noble Baroness agree with me about that?
Baroness Burton of Coventry: No, my Lords. My bills are higher.
The Earl of Avon: I hope the noble Baroness will send me her bills because these are the facts. If the noble Baroness will do so, I shall have a look at them. On average, over the last 12 months electricity prices have remained constant, which means that, as there was a rate of inflation during that time, the price of electricity has gone down in real terms.
There is a tendency among members of the Opposition to grudge any success achieved by the Government's economic policies and to question whether it is real. Electricity prices have proved that these policies are working. Real prices are steady because costs are coming down; inflation is down; and interest rates are down; coal prices to the generating hoard have come down. I believe that this is good news and I hope that it is good news to which we shall become accustomed.
The other half of this success story belongs to the electricity industry itself, and I pay tribute to it. We have been accused of knocking the nationalised industries. I do not do so. I believe that this industry is doing a good job. It has been successful in containing its costs. This year it has been enabled both to reduce its prices in real terms and to over-achieve the profit target agreed with the Government over the past three years. The industry is meeting its performance aim. It is able to reduce its controllable cost. It is doing so by improving thermal efficiency at power stations, by improving the efficiency of the transmission and distribution system and by reducing manpower and raising productivity.
Efficiency is a long haul and the industry has further to go, but I believe that the management deserve credit for the success they have achieved and for the efforts they are making. I hope noble Lords will join me in giving credit to them for this achievement.
1274
Some noble Lords, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Banks, have expressed concern about the cost of electricity to manufacturing industry. All the evidence that we have—it has been compiled and agreed by the Electricity Council with the CBI—is that industrial prices in this country are no higher than average prices on the Continent. This average is, of course, made up of some prices that are higher than ours and of some that are lower. In France, for example, all prices are lower than ours and those of other countries in Europe, largely because of their successful and growing nuclear power programmes.
On the subject of standing charges, the general outlook for fuel prices is better than it has been for years. Despite this, I know there is concern expressed over the standing charges included in gas and electricity bills. Those charges reflect the fixed costs of providing a supply—for example, meter reading and billing. The Government have considered suggestions that standing charges should be abolished but have concluded, as did the Labour Government in 1976, that this would not be a satisfactory way of helping those in need.
However, the Government have not been inactive on standing charges. First, at our request the industries commissioned studies by independent consultants. Their reports have been published: they support the principle and broad lever of these charges, and they identify certain areas where still further savings may be possible through increased efficiency.
The noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, and other noble Lords, spoke about help for the needy. The Government have also taken practical action to ensure that the less well-off can afford the fuel they need. Keeping prices artificially low is not, we believe, the way to do that. What needs to be done, and what the Government are actually doing, is to direct help specifically to those who would otherwise he unable to pay for the energy that they need and so would suffer hardship.
Supplementary benefit rates are intended to meet the cost of the normal amount of fuel needed by the average person on benefit, and the rates of benefit are increased annually in line with increases in the retail prices index over the year to the previous May. Obviously, there is an element of choice in the amount of fuel people use, so that some will spend more than others. But extra benefit is given to those who need to spend more on fuel because they are sick, disabled or frail and so need extra warmth, or because their homes are hard to heat.
In all, the Government expect to spend well over £350 million this year on such heating additions. That is no mean feat, and the Government's record is one of which we are proud. The rates of heating addition are presently at the highest level ever. On 21st November they were increased in line with the increase in fuel prices of 8·6 per cent. in the year to last May. Since November 1978, the basic rate of heating addition has increased by 140 per cent.—from 85 pence to £2·05 per week. 'That increase—I am pleased to be able to tell the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton—is well ahead of the increase in fuel prices over the same period. The heating allowance for those in greatest need is adjusted each year to reflect changes in fuel prices as well as other changes.
Lord Hill of Luton: My Lords, will the noble Earl, Lord Avon, allow me to intervene because I wish to get this point quite clear? Am I to understand from what he has said that no increases in the prices of fuel are contemplated in the foreseeable future?
The Earl of Avon: No, my Lords—I am afraid that is not the point. What I said earlier was, that the prices of the fuels are a matter for the two industries to settle for themselves.
I was going on to speak about the particular comment which the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, made about the case history of which he was kind enough to give me notice. I should like to tell him that the local office are taking steps to establish whether others have been affected; and arrears will he paid as appropriate. I thank the noble Lord very much for bringing that matter to our attention. We are taking steps to deal with it.
I should like to comment also on the remark that was made about the additional number of deaths numbering, I believe. 44,000 and given in a report recently. I believe that it was the noble Lord, Lord Banks, who mentioned that matter. That number relates of course to all causes of death—the main ones being heart disease, respiratory diseases and cancer. The figure for hypothermia—to which the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, also referred—is somewhere between 600 and 700 deaths per year.
More than 2½ million households now benefit from heating additions compared with 1½ million in 1978; 90 per cent. of supplementary pensioners get heating additions at a total cost of over £200 million this year. The Conservative Government introduced automatic heating additions for householders on supplementary benefit who are over 70 years of age or who have a dependant over 70 or under 5 years old. That means that more people than ever before get heating additions in their supplementary benefit, and that the additions. too, are worth more than ever before.
Finally, as a long stop for those on supplementary benefit who get into debt with their fuel board, DHSS and the boards have worked out a scheme, known as the "fuel direct scheme", which means they can avoid having their supply disconnected. An amount is deducted from their weekly benefit to pay for fuel they use and a further small sum is deducted and paid to the fuel board to reduce their debt. Over 180,000 people have taken advantage of this scheme and are presently on "fuel direct".
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, referred to diconnections. The industries operate a code of practice designed to safeguard those who suffer real hardship from disconnections. For example, the code provides that pensioners shall not be disconnected during the winter months. In fact, disconnections have been falling: between 1980 and 1982 the annual rate of gas disconnections fell by over 30 per cent., and electricity disconnections in England and Wales fell by nearly a quarter.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, mentioned the gas levy. The levy is imposed only on old contracts which are exempt from PRT. It is levied on British Gas rather than the oil producers because it is British Gas to
1276
whom the windfall profits resulting from the relatively low cost of the gas compared to its high market value would otherwise accrue. Thus, although the detail of the levy may be unique, the principle is exactly the same as for other North Sea taxations.
The noble Lord also mentioned the remarks in Hansard. If I may continue reading what I have here, it goes on:
"The introduction of the levy had no effect on prices since the Government reduced BGC's financial target specifically to take account of its introduction".
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, also mentioned the effects of asset disposals on BGC's finances. There is no reason for BGC to receive any part of the disposal proceeds. These will pass directly to the Exchequer and will therefore benefit taxpayers as a whole. BGC's financing limits take account of the needs of resources in its continuing operations and there is no reason to suppose that the disposals will cause an increase in gas prices. Gas prices will only be affected if BGC would otherwise have used profits to finance its gas operations, and such cross-subsidisation would have been quite wrong from both an economic and a commercial point of view.
The noble Baroness, Lady Burton. in her opening remarks asked about the future generating costs. The Government believe that prices should reflect the cost today of providing a supply on a continuing basis. To do otherwise would be to charge future generations for the cost today of supplying present consumers. I am sorry I have not been able to cover all the points made by the noble Lords and particularly Lady Burton. She asked me a specific point on figures which I could not take down, but I will look at it and let her have the answer.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down if he cannot give the answer tonight, which I do not expect, will he write to me—can he confirm or deny that these increases in gas and electricity were decided on 10th November at a full meeting of the Cabinet?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I imagine the noble Lord means "gas and electricity prices". The answer is, no, they were not.
House adjourned at twenty-one minutes before ten o'clock.

  PREPARATION OF LEGISLATION
  PREPARATION OF LEGISLATION
  EC: BUTTER AND MILK
  EC: BUTTER AND MILK
  BUTTER AND MILK PRODUCTS: PRODUCTION
  BUTTER AND MILK PRODUCTS: PRODUCTION
  AGRICULTURE: POLICY AND PRODUCTION
  AGRICULTURE: POLICY AND PRODUCTION
  LAND DRAINAGE: FUTURE PUBLICATION
  LAND DRAINAGE: FUTURE PUBLICATION
  THE CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION BOARD
  THE CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION BOARD
  NAVAL STRENGTH
  NAVAL STRENGTH